Sabres’ Regier, Ruff say Roy ready

The Stars announced Roy would likely be out until November. Dallas General Manager Joe Nieuwendyk later said they did not receive damaged goods from the Sabres because Roy had already undergone a physical, but it was simply a case of just putting him through a deeper medical evaluation and determining the surgery was necessary.

“It was an elective [surgery], a choice,” Sabres General Manager Darcy Regier said Thursday night during the team’s development camp scrimmage in First Niagara Center. “He could have played. He did play with it. It was a decision made by that organization. I spoke to Joe before when we went through all the medical records prior to when we made the trade. [Roy] was rehabbing, he played with the shoulder last year and he would have played going forward.”

So while it doesn’t appear the Stars are going to make an issue of the trade, the surprising news of Roy’s situation certainly opens a key question regarding the Sabres: Was Roy hiding the severity of his injury or were the Sabres pressing him to get on the ice when they should have been exercising more caution?

“I’m very confident in the decision by our medical staff,” Regier said. “He played with it last year and he could have played with it again this year. It was a decision by the Dallas Stars. It’s as simple as that. We were very comfortable with his situation.”

Regier bristled when asked if Roy’s surgery is a sign the Sabres have a pattern of pushing injured players to keep playing. It’s widely agreed that Ryan Miller came back too early from his concussion last year and that Thomas Vanek pushed through injuries to his shoulder and chest – and then admitted on his personal blog in mid-April that he also had a bad ankle sprain.

53 Responses to Sabres’ Regier, Ruff say Roy ready

  1. nordiques100 says:

    Though the benefits of the Roy deal may be delayed for Dallas, I feel overall, the Stars did fairly well.

    Whitney and Jagr, for at least the short term, will really help Eriksson and Benn. I think Roy will benefit from a change in scenery.

    Lots of good players here, so perhaps Ryder will maintain his scoring pace despite maybe missing Ribiero.

    But the most important thing is Benn and Eriksson have help.

    I guess the question is what to do with Morrow?

    Their D is also pretty small. Goligoski, Daley, Robidas and Larsen are very skilled, but all are less than 200 lbs.

    So maybe Morrow is moved for some more size on defence. They will need it until Oleksiak is ready which may be a year or two.

    The pacific is a very competitive division. The Yotes refuse to die and they’ll probably still have Doan leading them.

    The Sharks have lost some bite, but are still a pretty talented team.

    Anaheim brought back Selanne, and made some additions on D. They should be more competitive and they still have Ryan to maybe move.

    They’ll all have to get by the champs, the Kings. But there are absolutely no pushovers in this division.

    • ZillyHoo says:

      … Mike Komisarek, a mid prospect and low pick for Morrow…

      I’ll throw in my left nut if that helps.

    • reinjosh says:

      I like what Neuwy has done with this team this year. Just get Benn signed to a long term deal and the teams got a good core to work with.

      I’m not sure Morrow will be moved. Neuwy’s comment seem to suggest he wants him on the team. But maybe that’s GM talk.

      Some size will likely be added to the d corps with Brenden Dillon. 6 foot 3, 210 pounds, hits like a truck.

    • mojo19 says:

      Morrow would be good trade bait for a C. They only have Roy (who is out until Nov. with surgery) then Fiddler, Peterson, and maybe Faksa if he makes it. They need help down the middle.

      • reinjosh says:

        Benn played center for the entirety of last season (or most of it) and did very well. Plus Cody Eakin who played well in his limited time with the Caps (and his first pro season).

        I’m not sure they do much for the time being to be honest. They can withstand the two months without Roy.

        • mojo19 says:

          Ya, Benn played a lot of centre last year, and they’ve got Wandell who can play C too, but I think they’re gonna struggle because of the lack of depth down the middle.

          • reinjosh says:

            It’s probably a good point. It could be a rough couple months, even when Roy gets back. Roy will need time to rehab and learn to play with new teammates in a new system

  2. So, NHL is requesting several new changes.

    * The want players revenue to drop from 57% to 46%
    * They want to end arbitration.
    * Entry Level contracts to jump from 3 years to 5 years.
    * 5 year contract length. No more outrageous 10 year deals, no singing bonuses, no front loaded contracts – every year must equal the same salary.
    * 10 Seasons in the NHL before becoming a UFA

    I definitely agree with the 5 year contract length. I don’t GM’s should be able to outbid another team by offering a ridiculous contract. 5 years sounds like a decent length. All the GM’s can match that, and without having a front loaded deal, teams actually have to think about the salary cap for the players entire contract.

    No arbitration sounds like it’ll get thrown out immediately. I have no problem with the current arbitration process. I understand why they want to drop the players revenue. Teams are losing a lot of money by offering guarantee contracts that they have to pay. However, I think 11% is a big drop. I’m fearing a lockout with this. You can’t just turn a losing team into a profitable team – You need to reduce the money being lost before you can move forward.

    I think the entry level and seasons before hitting UFA will not change.


    • Steven_Leafs0 says:

      you sure about the front-loaded part? I never read that on any site yet. Either way I’m going to give my take on each change the NHL wishes to make:

      1) Drop players revenue from 57% to 46%

      -Stupid. I understand that owners obviously want to make more money and that 57% is one of, if not the highest percentage in terms of player salary – owner’s revenue ratio but 46% is too big of a drop. Some have said that if it drops that low then some or most players will have to take pay cut, never gonna happen. 50% will be the lowest it will fall and I think they will settle on 52-54%.

      2) No more player arbitration.

      -Why bother even ask for this? This is a useful tool for RFAs if them and their team hit a brick wall in negotiations. Considering no one uses offer sheets this is the only tool to prevent RFAs who score 30 goals to be forced to accept a salary of 2M (just an example). I personally don’t care what they do with this though.

      3) Entry level deal are now 5 years long.

      -Love it, there is absolutely no reason why Doughty or Stamkos should be making 7.5M at 21 years of age, especially coming off a RFA contract. The only thing I don’t like is the idea that a guy like Schultz who decided to go to college will be punished and forced to sign a 5 year no money deal until he is 27. Make it something like this:

      20 and under: 5 year entry level deal
      21-22 : 3 year entry level deal
      23+: 2 year entry level deal

      Just to prevent players from being stuck on an entry level deal past their 25th birthday.

      Another option that could be decent if people don’t like the 5 year ELCs is to put a cap on the salary on the next 3 years of their career. (Example: Stamkos ends his ELC, instead of making $8M cash and $7.5M cap he can only make $4M cash max for each of the next 3 years. If he chooses to sign a 5 year deal he can structure it like this if he wants: $4M, $4M, $4M, $10M, $10M [$6.4M cap hit))

      Of course this does effectively end the offer sheet option but since no one uses it anyway who cares?

      4) 5 year max contract length.

      -The NHL NEEDS this. The mega contracts are starting to get stupid, the only other option is to force the cap hit to be the same as the cash payout.

      There are a few ways to do that:

      I) same cash paid over every year of the contract (no more front or back loading)

      II) make the cap hit the number of the highest paid year throughout the whole contract (player makes 12M in his first season, that is the cap hit even when he makes 2M). In this example they should probably force teams to take the cap hit even if the player retires.

      III) make the cap hit the cash hit in each season. Example: player makes 12M his first season the cap is 12M, he makes 8M his second season, the cap hit is 8M, etc.

      to be honest if the only thing the NHL does is stop these mega contracts from happening then I’ll be happy.

      5) 10 seasons in the NHL before becoming an UFA.

      -Dumb, dumb and dumb. So if a player enters the league at 25 he cannot leave that team until he is 35? Yeah that is stupid, free agency will suck worse than it does.

      Why not just make a flat rule:

      You are a UFA if your contract ends after your 26th birthday. RFA otherwise.

      Keep the regular “if you don’t sign as a RFA and don’t play in the NHL you become UFA afterwards” or arbitration RFA/UFA rules in place but make this simple and not at all retarded. No 30+ year old RFAs, that is… what is the word I’m looking for… DUMB!!

      That is all for now, I hope you enjoyed my rant.

      • reinjosh says:

        It’s a starting point right? The owners don’t want to offer anything too enticing just yet. It’s meant to be a basis which both sides can work off of and work towards the end deal. It’s the low ball offer that’s part of every traditional negotiating tactic. Nothing more.

        1) Agreed. I think around 53-47 make’s sense.

        2) This is clearly meant as something the Owners can use as a chip. It’s the “we’ll include arby for this thing”. They don’t seriously think they will get it.

        3) I think this is the most likely to happen. Player’s won’t want to accept contract limits, or second contract caps. And as has happened with the NFL and NBA, it’s highly likely they through rookies under the bus. 4 or 5 year ELC’s I think are likely.

        4) This won’t happen. Just a gut feeling. It seems to be too much trouble getting it than it’s worth. Especially because it’s going to create issues of poaching almost guaranteed. Players want long term stability. This destroys it. They will be forced to ask for higher revenues or high salaries. Either way, something the owners won’t like.

        5) I doubt UFA changes much. 7 accrued season under 27 plus changed for older players (as it already is). I think the age will rise a little actually. To 28.

        • Steven_Leafs0 says:

          maybe if the players don’t want a cap on the number of years you can sign just make the rule that if you retire (with exception to injuries and whatnot) the cap hit still counts for the remainder of the contract (35+ or not) and maybe something like what ever the highest cash year you make is the cap hit for the whole contract.

          It means no more 13 year, $7.5M cap, 12M cash contracts which is what the NHL wants to stop. If you want to sign a 13 year deal and be paid more up front then your team is going to pay for it now (with the higher cap hit), and later (still counts when your retire).

    • Gambo says:

      The only thing that makes sense is the 5 year contract length.

      11% drop is way too much, it should be negotiated to around 53% for the players.

      I really don’t like the entry level contract being 5 years, players at 21,22,23,24 years old often leading the league in points. It’s not fair that they make 7 times less than Scott Gomez.

      10 seasons before becoming UFA? Really, free agency is boring enough. This would destroy it. I can see there being a lot more trades with this, that would be a definite positive, but no way the PA agrees to that.

  3. nordiques100 says:

    So it appears the offer 4 luongo is komisarek, kulemin and a 1st. .BRUTAL.

    Please god don’t do it Burke.

    Thankfully the panthers have upped thier offer.

    • Gambo says:

      Where did you hear this???
      Link please?

      • nordiques100 says:

        Twitter – hockeyyinsiderr…spelled like that.

        My only hope is Dreger is right. He’s called this guy a fraud.

        • Gambo says:

          Wow, yeah let’s hope Dregs is right. Luongo better make them top 5 in the league if they do it.

          With there being a chance at a lockout, he CANNOT trade this years first yet.

          • nordiques100 says:

            He shouldn`t trade it period.

            It would have made sense, had he landed both Parise and Suter. Or say went all in for Nash. If he went all in on a couple of top free agents, made the JVR trade, all he`d be missing is the front line goalie to put them over.

            But he didn`t. He has a young team filled with an extreme number of holes.

            A trade like that could set the organization back 5 more years.

            • Shoelesshobo says:

              As per the twitter account. Never heard of the guy but after reading a bit of his Tweets and his looking this over I have come to this conclusion.

              1. He states he has worked for “4” NHL teams what he does not state is what he was employed as. I mean I have had a job at Mile 1 stadium out in St.John’s when the Ice Caps were playing and was on their payroll but yet I do not consider myself apart of an “NHL” team.

              2. His email account ends with Now every little girl and their pet puppy has or had a hotmail account in the past. Aside from the tricky 2+2=? question I think is pretty fair to say it is not a challenge to build one. If you want to be taken as a true insider buy a damn domain most come with webmail accounts with custom tags. I mean the Government of Canada was giving away free .com domains with website builder and email to people who wanted to create a business.

              Now to the matter at hand. That price should be a non starter In no universe should that first round pick be involved in trade negotiations. If any first round pick is to be traded it better be Burke trading his first round pick at the Buffet table for the GM meeting.

              Honestly I still say if we are to get Louongo and I am not against it if the price is in the ball park of…

              Cap dump
              Mid prospect
              2nd round pick.

              • reinjosh says:

                Agreed on all accounts. I honestly can’t take someone who claims to be an insider who won’t reveal himself seriously. I can barely conceal my disgust for Eklund and the guy has actually broken trades before anyone else.

                On the Lu deal, I like what you propose. I’m ok including a first only if it is conditional on us making the playoffs (and I might even up the ante to it be conditional we make it the 2nd round or it’s just a 2nd round pick).

  4. I don’t know. I’m on the fence with it. I see where you guys are coming from, but I don’t think keeping that first and those players is better than taking a solid # 1 goalie. Of course, If there’s a lockout, I also don’t agree with the bottom 5 teams from last season being given the chance for the #1 pick. I think it should be completely random. So, I guess if were talking about the chance to pick #1/#2 overall, than yeah, terrible deal.

    • mojo19 says:

      “a solid #1 goalie.” You know we’re talking about Luongo, right? Where do you rate him in the league? I figure he’s in the 20-30 range. Ligit starter? Sure. “Solid #1” not really.

      • reinjosh says:

        What? Name me 19 better goalies than him?

        • kessel_leafs81 says:

          brainstorming the goalies better then him.. give or take a few.. some arguable


          i would think lu is still top ten in the league

          would hate to give up kulimen tho.. hes fast and has size.. id look for him to have a breakout year.

          komisarek, macarthur and conditional 1st (if we make playoffs 1st, if not 2nd and if theres a lockout then it gets pushed to a 2014 draftpick)

          id make that deal. Defence aren’t looking too great, but lu plays better when he gets 35+ shots a night like when he did in florida. I can see him taking an offensively minded leafs team on his back and contribute very well.

          • reinjosh says:

            You have to knock Elliott and Smith off that list. They had impressive seasons but one season doesn’t make them a better goalie. I’d even place Fleury below him as Luongo has been far more consistent than Fleury and been consistently better.

            Luongo is easily a top 10 goalie in this league.

        • mojo19 says:

          Alright Josh I will indulge…

          You’ve got your elite, top end guys:
          1. Lunqvist
          2. Rinne
          3. Thomas
          4. Kipper
          5. Quick
          No one on hear will debate that Lu compares witj these guys.

          The next group consists of Fleury, Price, Ward, Pavolec, Brodeur, Backstrom, and Halak, who I believe are all handily better, which rounds out 12.

          Now Luongo falls into this next group which includes Niemi, Miller, Lehtinen, Bryzgalov, Luongo, Hiller, Smith, Howard, and Anderson. I will go back on my previous statement and call this the “solid starter” category.

          Now that’s already 21 goalies, suggesting Lu is in fact a top 20. However there is the wild card category as well which includes goalies who are relatively unproven, any of which may be a top end goalie this, or another upcoming season. The group is headlined by Brian Elliott and Tuuka Rask and includes: Schneider, Bobrovsky, Harding, Dubnyk, Varlamov, Bernier, Reimer, Holtby, Linback, Mason. and although I don’t think he’ll be given the opportunity this season, Jonas Enroth.

          Any number of goalies from that group could emerge, or in Elliott’s case, repeat as a top end goalie this year. It’s a little unpredictable, but let’s say 3 or 4 play really well (odds on Elliott, Rask, Schneids, and Holtby, maybe Lindback) then that changes the complection of NHL tending.

          So to me, I have Lu at around 23-24, you may have him a bit higher, there is plenty of room for debate, but anyone who has him top 10 is nuts as far as I’m concerned.

          • reinjosh says:

            I’d like to see why you think Luongo isn’t better than Pavelec, Fleury, Backstrom, Ward and even Halak?

            He has better numbers than Pavelec, Fleury, Backstrom and comparable to War and Halak?

            And he’s done it a hell of a lot longer than anyone of them.

            And Brodeur is not a top goalie anymore. He hasn’t been better than Luongo since 2007-2008.

            • mojo19 says:

              Brodeur is much better. His puck handling ability is unparalleled. This latest run to the Cup final was a thing of beauty. Although Marty is prone to some funny goals lately, its nothing compared to the bad angle goals that Lu allows. And once again, I’m not overly concerned with the numbers, otherwise Elliott and Schneider should be considered the leagues best from last year.

            • mojo19 says:

              Don’t let Pavelecs numbers fool you, he’s insane. Killer goalie. Cam Ward, Fleury, maybe they lack consistency but they also have that extra gear, that ability to rise up to an elite level, which Lu lacks. Again, Lehtinen, Niemi, Anderson, these are better comparables for Lu.

              • Steven_Leafs0 says:

                the last sentence perhaps shows some serious bias. How the hell is Luongo a worse goalie than Lehtonen, Niemi, Anderson and the one from above, Brysgalov? And then you throw in crap goalies who are not even good enough (either yet or at all) to be a starter like Mason or Bobrovsky.

                Your the one who is nuts Mojo, a top 10 list is a personal preference for the most part. If it isn’t then you have to look at stats and accomplishments which makes your “Luongo is top 25-30 at best” argument really dumb.

                At best I can give you these guys ahead of Luongo 100%:

                Thomas (assuming he wasn’t retired)

                Then these guys as most likely ahead of Luongo (depending how you look at it as they aren’t automatically better):

                Fleury (hasn’t been better recently)
                Price (hasn’t had the team so not really his fault)
                Ward (has been kind of bad actually)
                Backstrom (hasn’t done much for the Wild, even when they were good)
                Halak (I would rank him higher but I can see why other would not)

                So realistically Luongo should be in many top 10 lists, I can see him dropping out of many other list though as a organization like this is purely a preference thing.

                • mojo19 says:

                  Bryz, Anderson, etc. are not necessarily better, but in the same realm. I would concede that Lu is arguably as high as 15, low as 25.

                  You also only listed Lunqvist, Rinne, Quick and Thomas as the elite, neglecting Kipper, which I will assume was just an oversight.

  5. nordiques100 says:

    So the same hockeyyinsiderr guy says a roster player and the 2013 2nd for Bernier was a first offer by Burke to LA. If that player is Kadri or Colborne, or perhaps even Gunnarsson or Franson, no complaints.

    That`s infinitely more acceptable than losing 2 pieces, Kulemin and the 1st that`s extremely more valuable to Toronto than any one of the above.

    Bernier is an exceptional prospect. If no 1st round pick is lost, that`s in itself a huge victory for Toronto.

    Luongo is a great goalie, but Toronto needs their 1st rounders more plain and simple.

    • Why do they need their first rounder? What they need is a solid #1 goalie. I’d even say they still need a solid #1 center, although I’d like to give JVR a chance first. But unless you see them getting #1/#2 next year, or drafting a franchise center, that first pick should have trade bait written all over it. They have the core, they’re just missing that goal-tending and center. If you’re not going to give up that first, i’d at least make it Kulemin/Kadri/Colborne/Gunnarsson/Franson, 2nd, plus D’amigo.

      • mojo19 says:

        Nope. Put Luongo and Getzlaf on this team and we’re not winning the Cup. A centre and a goalie are the glaring needs, but the team the core players that finished no higher than 10th in the East in the last 5 years is not really all that close.

        Trading firsts is stupid. Its what the Leafs have done for the last 20 years. Ironically, we even traded the first round pick (4th overall) that became Roberto Luongo to the New York Islanders along with Kenny Jonsson for Wendel Clarke and Matthieu Schneider because at the time “all we needed was a legit top line winger and a PP quarter back defenceman.” Wow, imagine we didn’t go for that quick fix we could’ve just drafted Lu 15 years ago.

        Why must history always repeat itself? So now we deal our first rounder to bring in Luongo, we go from being bad to mediocre for 3 or 4 years, the wheels spin, and we start all over again. No thank you. I’ve seen that one before.

      • Gambo says:

        They need the first rounder because the goal is to win a Stanley Cup.

        “They have the core, they’re just missing that goal-tending and center.” That’s true, if the goal is to make the playoffs.

        Basically Burke is looking at the big picture where a lot of Leaf fans are strictly looking at the present. Trading that first for Luongo will definitely benefit the present, keeping it will benefit the future. The future has a much, much better chance at winning a Stanley Cup (assuming they keep this pick) then the present does with Luongo.

        • mojo19 says:

          Thank you Gambo. Well said.

          If we want a short term fix we should just sign Dominic Hasek, he’s 47 but I believe he can still play.

          • nordiques100 says:

            The time to trade 1sts is not now for the Leafs.

            You deal 1sts if you are close, and even then, its got to be something pretty extravagant to do so.

            Or, you draft and develop well and are comfortable selecting players in the 2nd round and beyond.

            The Leafs are not at that stage whatsoever.

            I look at Columbus. It was fine to trade their 1st last year for Carter. But, this team had needs in goal, which they didnt fill leaving Mason hanging to dry. they had needs on D, which they ended up filling trading Carter for Johnson. And their forwards, well they just aren’t very good beyond Nash. They needed big help there too.

            Its better to stay patient. Especially since, Burke refuses to sign big name free agents.

            that’s the problem when you don’t do that. you limit yourself in a big way from getting a premier player for free.

            The only other time you can possibly get a premier player for free is the draft.

            Toronto right now can’t afford to take away any more avenues to acquire good talent. if they cant sign free agents, and dont have any picks to make selections there, all they have is trades.

            honestly its what is killing Burke. GMs know he wont go after say a Parise or Suter, so they will try to gouge him via trade.

            • reinjosh says:

              When has Burke ever been gouged in a trade? And don’t say Kessel because that’s hardly the wrost deal in the world contrary to popular belief.

              And your overrating first rounders again. They are not nearly as valuable as people are saying.

              Sure, I’m with you on not trading it right now but first rounders are not the golden tickets people make them out to be.

              And I actually agree with thsigamewelose on Luongo making us a much better team. I’m not sure people realize how much stronger a goalie would make us. We aren’t a bad team at all. In fact our core is solid and very young. It’s not beyond logic that a top goalie could not only make us a playoff threat but a threat to go far. I don’t subscribe to the idea that this team is as bad as you people think. I mean we damn well finished 10th overall in scoring. Add a goalie and the defense improves drastically and we are a much deadlier team.

            • reinjosh says:

              And speaking of repeating history, let’s not trade for Bernier using Reimer/Scrivens please. He’s hardly proven he’s better than either of them and really only has pedigree going for him. That’s not worth the price he’s going to cost.

              • Steven_Leafs0 says:

                yeah no more trading Rask-like goalies for potential Raycrofts. lol.

                1st round pick may not be that huge in general (hell picks from the 20-50 range have less than a 50% chance of making the NHL (and that includes 3rd & 4th liners).

                But since we are a rebuilding team, trading our 1st potentially opens the door to giving up another star player (Neids, Luongo, & Seguin to name a few). If we knew we were going to become a playoff team without sacrificing our future (including Kadri + Colborne in the deal), and we knew 100% there was not going to be a lockout then fine, we trade the pick, but since we don’t know we cannot do it unless we trade it assuming it is going to be a top 5 pick and get that much value for it IMO.

                • nordiques100 says:

                  yes thank you. the situation is right now for the Leafs, not good.

                  its best for them to have a string of 1st rounders put together.

                  Considering too, the team has like more hockey staff than there are people in India, they got rid of Ron Wilson, who was destructive to some of the young Leaf draftees, and they have arguably the best coach in the AHL in Dallas Eakins, I think there is a strong future ahead of the team in terms of drafting and development.

                  The Leafs are nowhere near that stage. Luongo to me is a quick fix and to put in a 1st on top of Kulemin is ridiculous.

                  The 1st to me can be included if it were for a player with a long term future with the team, like Kessel, like Gardiner who may be around the next decade.

                  Like for an Evander Kane or for Matt Duchene or someone who’s under 25, with high ceiling and potential.

                  Definitely not for a 33 year old goalie, no matter how good he is.

                  With the way the Leafs front office is, I think their strength would be developing young players through a strong, stable system. I think they have that in place. I think acquiring the best young players, which is really best done via the draft, the team has a shot at rivaling the Kings who yes had Richards, Carter, Mitchell, but added them after building with Brown, Kopitar, Doughty, Quick and others.

                  Chicago with Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Bolland, etc, which were there and allowed them to get Campbell, get Hossa to support.

                  Boston too, Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Seguin, Marchand, a nice foundation of home grown talents.

                  Its the way to go IMO. Toronto is nowehre near. They lack the intangibles of heart, character, desire, intensity and grit. They are still a bit weak on D, they have no centres to speak of. So I dont know if one goalie makes a world of difference.

                  You could end up being like Montreal. Only have a shot cause of Halak and Price, but really, have a below average to terrible team in front which could just simply die at any time leaving the goalie by himself.

                  It makes no difference if they were 10th in scoring or were in the playoffs in February. Bottom line, they failed. like in 2007, like in the past 7 years combined.

                  They have many holes to fill. A quick fix wont do it.

                  • nordiques100 says:

                    And yes, Luongo would help a lot.

                    But, the price is way too high.

                    Toronto can’t do that deal giving up any of: Kessel, Lupul, Kulemin, Gardiner, Grabovski, Reilly, Phaneuf, their 1st round picks, JVR, Percy, Biggs. Their key guys have to remain intact.

                    I dont think Luongo is worth it. Even if he is a top 10 goalie. that age, that contract, the fact the team is still on the growing pains path, the fact the other team’s needs are still rather extensive. Its not the time to do it.

                    • reinjosh says:

                      I don’t think it makes sense to give up any of those pieces for Luongo either. I was never advocating for that actually. Just musing on the benefits of having him.

                      Also I largely agree with trading the first rounder. Don’t do it. Again just musing on the constant overrating of its value overall. I was more targeting your comment on if we were competing than anything else.

                      Also I don’t think the holes you perceive are as big as you think. I know for a fact you think we need a number 1 dman and I can damn well bet you that we wouldn’t need one with a starting goalie capable of playing like a starting goalie. My point being a true starter makes those perceived holes go away, or at least makes those holes less large.

                • reinjosh says:

                  I’m actually against trading for Bernier. I really, really don’t see the point. He really hasn’t been that impressive in his starts and hasn’t shown anything more at any other level than either Reimer or Scrivens. Going after Bernier is what I see as a panic move. It’s unnecessary and unneeded.

                  If we really are ok going slow than we should have no issue using our own goalie prospects, prospects who have shown some considerable potential, and seeing what we have with them. Trading Scrivens now is way, way to similar to trading away pre-breakout Rask. I’m not interested in doing it. It has too much potential to backfire.

                  • mojo19 says:

                    If you don’t want a Seguin or Forsberg type backfire, don’t trade 1sts in the offseason. Use them during the year. Buy your own insurance. Who knows, a good goalie might wind up on waivers, no more huge gambles.

                    Come on Leafs fans, say no to idiocracy. Say no to Lu.

                    • nordiques100 says:

                      well i’ve always been saying, Luongo, Bernier, Backstrom, whomever, all are fine…..for the right price.

                      Kuly and a 1st for Luongo isnt the right price.

                      Trading a prospect for Bernier is fine, trading their 1st for Bernier is not fine.

                      A front line young player… when they picked up Kessel 4 years ago, well including a 1st, is a risk, but much less of a risk than trading a 1st for a goalie.

                      Been there done that for Toronto. See Raycroft and Toskala.

                      Alot of success has to do with asset management. trading their 1st would be poor management. heck even taht rumor b4, trading Lupul….cause he may not re-sign, now for Luongo deal is poor asset management.

                      In that case i think Lupul….if he has a similar season as last….but Toronto doesn’t want to pay this guy 6.5 mil, well, hello trade deadline, hello highest bidder. that’s proper asset management.

                      The first as not like they were pre-lockout. I think they are worth a lot more.

                      You have to be pretty certain of a playoff spot, or guarantee pick 20-30 range before considering moving.

                      I think the unnecessary pressure, which this team has proven it cannot handle, would be brutal, like in 2010 when the Bruins landed Seguin. its cruel to do that to the players.

                      The team needs to be sensible. right now, Gillis is doing what’s best for his team asking for the moon. right now, including the 1st not just to get Lu but to rid themselves of Komisarek is not worth it.

                      To Burke, it may be, so he doesn’t humiliate Komisarek, burying in the minors, one of his handpicked guys. that could very well be his reasoning. but i rather keep komi on the roster, and play him, than to try and save cash that way.

                      Burke wasn’t born yesterday i hope. He’s made some huge blunders, but seriously he cannot be this idiotic. Thats something howson would do, or Don Waddell.

                      trading a 1st for say a Getzlaf or a Evander Kane, well that’s a different story.

  6. reinjosh says:

    Did LN91 leave or is he just quiet during the summer?

  7. mojo19 says:

    No reply button up there… Just wanted to say good

Leave a Reply