| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 04/25/2012 : 08:14:20
with all the speculation with goalies this off season. who do you think would be the BEST fit for the number 1 goaling in TO.
Of all the goalis available in FA or with trades i honestly think that lou would be the best fit.
he would at the very least get the leafs back to playoffs wich will take heat off of burke while (from the fan base crying out that he is not a good fit) our younger goalies mature and improve behind him.
who knows he may be the cure to the curse that is the elusive stanley cup. (doubtfull)
although i would like to see harding (UFA) in the blue and white. burke has said he is going to try to retool some positions through trades. i like the idea of a young number 1 goaling thriving in a hockey rich market. |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 07/07/2012 : 06:43:34
As a Leaf fan I would go for Bernier too.
Luongo, this year and the next couple of seasons, it would be better. But that long and hefty contract scares me. So if you go and get Bernier, you have three solid young goalies. You hope one of them pans out. You can use the others for trade bait, sign a solid backup, keep one in the minors, go tandem, whatever, there would be more options.
But if you get Luongo, and lets say Luongo gets injured, Reimer does good, then your stuck just like the Canucks are stuck right now. It seems like the options are limited with Luongo in net and a big contract. Luongo's good and yes he could be that missing piece for the Leafs to make the playoffs, but I prefer to go cheaper, younger, and to open for options (if it doesn't go as planned) |
| @valanche |
Posted - 07/05/2012 : 18:10:21
Who cares where anyone was drafted?
Bernier has not warranted where he was selected thus far in his career and to me is overrated.
I've never been convinced he could be a number 1 in this league.
It's Luongo or bust for the leafs this year
66 is > than 99 |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/05/2012 : 16:37:38
nuxfan....In fairness to Bernier, he was the 11th overall pick in the '06 draft whereas Reimer was the 99th that same year and Scrivens went undrafted. So, i think it's fair to say that the expectations on Bernier have been higher since day one and moving forward, he's simply a higher rated prospect as far as goalies go.
There was also talk as Quick was on the rise that the Kings would deal him and keep Bernier as they were more excited about Bernier moving forward. It wasn't untill the past year or year and half that Quick had his breakout to become the def #1 moving forward in LA.
Depending on the cost of obtaining him, if i had my way and were in charge of the Leafs, i'd prefer to move forward with Bernier than either of the current young goalies they have. He's younger than both (albeit only months younger than Reimer) and ranked higher as a prospect at every point along the way.
Again, if i'm Burke and i'm fighting to keep my job, i'd prefer to have none of the above in charge of my future and would prefer a guy like Luongo who would certainly be good enough to get my team into the playoffs. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/05/2012 : 09:16:55
I'm not sure why there is so much hype around Bernier - he just hasn't done much at the NHL. The Leafs already have 2 up-and-coming goaltenders that have done as much or more than Bernier at the NHL level in Reimer, and another one that shows great promise in Scrivens - I'm not sure why they would want Bernier at this point, unless they're going to roll the dice with a young goalie tandem.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 21:44:00
Personally i think the Leafs should roll the dice with Bernier and hope he's starter material. Prob is, Burke prob doesn't wanna risk his job with that decision as he could be let go if he doesn't get into the playoffs very soon. Bernier is a bit of a gamble, albeit with a nice high side if he does pan out. But if he doesn't........ |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 16:26:11
so everything i have heard in rumors states that bernier has asked for a trade after quick was resigned. only because and get this he wants to be a starter. i still think what i had stated was more than a fair offer for his services. even though i feel it is an over payment. you gotta give something up to get something. |
| Lee Marshall |
Posted - 06/26/2012 : 17:05:23
Again I say NO Luongo. Guy's a stiff. And *IF* the Leaf 'brass' think they need him at almost 7 million per season in order to buy some time...don't PAY for that mistake. Van wants to unload the money...and their 2nd string goalie. Sit back, relax, wait. Nobody's gonna give Van much for Bobby-Lu. He ain't worth it.
But 7 mil off the books/cap room'll work for Van. Don't give 'em diddly. They waive him. He HAS to go.
Who the cap fits...Let them wear it. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 20:41:01
Nuxfan.....it's funny you bring this up. I haven't actually heard or read anything on a Kesler move, but a couple weeks ago, i wondered about it myself. I know there was some stuff at season's end said about Kesler and the Canucks but i haven't heard anything since? Regardless, it's a possibility but his injury status could be a big problem. Would a team be willing to risk trading for a guy going for surgery with no knowledge of recovery?
As far as what comes back, that's a tough one. Kessel isn't likely to be going anywhere, though we've also heard rumours about him having the chance to leave in 2 years when his deal is up? Lupul maybe, now that they've got JVR? Prob take more than just him of course, but with any deal involving two guys like Lu and Kesler, it would def be complicated. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 16:33:12
To take this conversation well into left field... I wonder if there is more afoot in this deal that we're not privy to yet, that Burke wants more incentive to take on Luongo. TOR needs a starting goalie, but they also desperately need a skilled centre - and I've read a few stories this spring/summer indicating that Kesler might be on the outs with VAN management (bad in the locker room, part of the negative view of VAN by other teams, perennially injured). Could Burke be trying to swing a bigger deal, and get Luongo AND Kesler out of VAN?
An appropriate return would be in order though, while Luongo is a salary dump with a small destination market, Kesler is not a dump and has huge value. Kesler's NTC kicks in in July for the final 4 years of his deal, so if he's going to be traded at all the time is now.
I have nothing to back this up, its merely speculation on my part - given the stories I've been reading in Vancouver about Kesler this summer, and TOR's obvious need for a strong centre. I do not know what the return package would have to look like for both Kesler and Luongo. |
| @valanche |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 16:00:24
I'm pretty sure Burke is just playing hardball when he says he's okay going into next season with Reimer and scrivens. He knows possible suitors for Luongo are dwindling and the asking price is just too high for him (he wants the deal to be a salary dump). Gillis says he is okay holding both goalies going into next season ( just wants some value for a legit #1 goalie).
All in all it's a case of who breaks first as I'm sure both of these GMs futures rely heavily on what happens in net this offseason - and both IMO are terrified with the current situation heading into next year. They both have good poker faces tho... Maybe a lockout will buy them both some time!
66 is > than 99 |
| Sensfan101 |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 12:30:40
If Reimer is going to be a starting goalie he needs to change his style. Has anyone noticed the wasy he holds his glove? He is just inviting shooters to go top shelf. Until he fixes that he will never be a starting goalie.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 11:14:57
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So, putting Luongo aside,
What do you Leafers think we could get Bernier for?
I keep on hearing from Burke - and trust me, I understand he could be totally BSing as he often does - that he still has not given up on Reimer being our starter, and that even with looking at upgrades in goal, he would still get a shot.
So, if that philosophy is actually a reflection of how the Leafs management will act . . . that means no Luongo. That means, the Leafs get another potential starter, a young guy with lots of promise. That means Bernier perhaps.
How do you guys feel on perhaps getting Bernier in a trade? What would it take?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Yeah, I believe Burke in this regard as much as I believe MG when he says he would be happy having both Lu and Shnieds in net next year in VAN 
Honestly, I think if Bernier were really a viable solution for TOR, the trade would have already happened. I don't think it would take too much to get Bernier out of LA - he hasn't played enough games to allow teams to really see what he's made of, and the games he has played have been average performances, with very few gems. Despite being lauded at the same level as Schneider and Rask in terms of "best backup goalies", I think he is a distant 3rd in that race. He's going into the final year of his deal, and will almost certainly leave LA after this coming year.
IMO TOR has their goalie-of-the-future in Reimer - he's just not ready to carry that team at this age or stage in his development. Luongo would be perfect for TOR, in that he has 5-ish years left (enough time for Reimer to develop), and probably provides the clearest path to the postseason to boot. |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 09:11:36
well slozo i have always been a guy that likes the risk...... so bernier coming to TOR would be interesting. going to LAK first and formost a goalie would need to go back for a back up so probably( although i like him more than riems) scrivens, and say a couple draft picks and maybe a player as well. far too much for an unproven goalie in my eyes. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 07:40:01
So, putting Luongo aside,
What do you Leafers think we could get Bernier for?
I keep on hearing from Burke - and trust me, I understand he could be totally BSing as he often does - that he still has not given up on Reimer being our starter, and that even with looking at upgrades in goal, he would still get a shot.
So, if that philosophy is actually a reflection of how the Leafs management will act . . . that means no Luongo. That means, the Leafs get another potential starter, a young guy with lots of promise. That means Bernier perhaps.
How do you guys feel on perhaps getting Bernier in a trade? What would it take?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/23/2012 : 12:37:25
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
It's always a possibility, but the Canucks could ALWAYS match, even if it meant giving away Luongo to someone else for next to nothing. Also, if it were that crazy of an offer, say goodbye to a ton of draft picks from the Leafs. Good luck building their prospect pool moving forward!
VAN has repeatedly said that they'll match any reasonable offer sheet - and probably some unreasonable ones as well. TOR would flat out have to overpay in order to get Schneids, which will make no one happy - and the irony of an overpay offer sheet from Burke (remember the Penner uproar) would be golden.
I personally see VAN instantly matching any offer sheet up to 5M/season. Anything over 4M is an overpayment for a goalie who (as good as he is) has played less than 60 games over the last 2 years. If someone threw him a 6M offer sheet, then perhaps you see MG pause - along with the breath of every goalie coming up for contract renewal in the next 2-3 years who will then use that contract as a measuring stick on their own value.
If I had to guess, I'd say VAN will be able to sign him to a 3yr/10-12M deal when the dust settles. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/23/2012 : 11:56:41
quote:
Originally posted by mandree888
here is an interesting thought.
Burke gets tired of VAN not accepting his proposals and send shnieder an offer sheet that the canucks have a very hard time matching.
It's always a possibility, but the Canucks could ALWAYS match, even if it meant giving away Luongo to someone else for next to nothing. Also, if it were that crazy of an offer, say goodbye to a ton of draft picks from the Leafs. Good luck building their prospect pool moving forward! |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 06/23/2012 : 11:52:04
here is an interesting thought.
Burke gets tired of VAN not accepting his proposals and send shnieder an offer sheet that the canucks have a very hard time matching.
|
| Guest9274 |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 19:18:29
Never thought i'd be cheering for a Subban. Way to go Malcom, just keep beating Montreal. |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 19:09:32
i know alex that the only thing i can think of that justifies the draft choice. the whole replenish stocks before we deplete them solution. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 18:56:12
Yeah, it was known going in that it was very deep in D, but to see 7 in a row and 8 of the top 10 go as D was pretty shocking! Equally shocking was seeing Forsberg and Grigorenko both fall out of the top 10. I really thought the Jets were gonna take Forsberg when he fell that far!
As for Burke, was he going with the "take the best guy available regardless of position"? If he was, why was Forsberg ranked so high by so many and shouldn't he have picked him? I'm guessing that a dman will be dealt (or two?) in a trade for a goalie. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 18:28:17
8 out of the top ten were d-men. Bizarre, but I guess they were the strength of the draft crop this year.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2013. |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 18:19:27
ok some one please tell me what the hell burke is thinking drafting another defencmen..... is it to replenish a young guy as he is anticipating the louongo trade?? even still why not draft the future centre of the franchise?? |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 11:18:10
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
The more i look at it, the more i think i'd be willling to take any of the aforementioned "salary dumps" (Komi, Lombardi, Armstrong). Armstrong and Lombardi have only 1 year left each and Komi only has 2. Komi's hit is 4.5 but actual pay is only 3.5 (though the cap hit is more important really). Armstrong is "only" 3 mil and Lombardi 3.5, which means i'd prefer Armstrong if i had a choice  . As nuxfan hinted, he's the kind of guy Vancouver could possibly utilize and maybe he finds his game again? Not a bad gamble if for only one season?
Guaranteed we won't be able to pawn off Armstrong on anyone at this point. He is such a re-injury risk right now, cannot see him playing more than 50 games for any team, never mind Vancouver in the tougher/more physical Western Conference.
I think there is real, and somewhat hidden value in Komisarek for the team that takes him (if he leaves the Leafs). And Lombardi . . . there are question marks, and I just don't see him ever being the same player, but he can certainly still play the third line at least - but also injury prone at this point.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 18:44:12
the more i think about it now as much as i would like to see staal in the blue and white i dont think it will happen. if it does NICE! but it most likely wont. that being said i don't want anyone from the ducks wither even though yes they are great players they all gave up on carlyle once already. why give them another shot? i really don;t know what the leafs are going to do about the number 1 centre position. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 17:01:52
The more i look at it, the more i think i'd be willling to take any of the aforementioned "salary dumps" (Komi, Lombardi, Armstrong). Armstrong and Lombardi have only 1 year left each and Komi only has 2. Komi's hit is 4.5 but actual pay is only 3.5 (though the cap hit is more important really). Armstrong is "only" 3 mil and Lombardi 3.5, which means i'd prefer Armstrong if i had a choice . As nuxfan hinted, he's the kind of guy Vancouver could possibly utilize and maybe he finds his game again? Not a bad gamble if for only one season?
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 15:31:52
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Back to Luongo deals,
I think we all know that some salary has to return to Vancouver, if Toronto or any other team is taking on Luo - so, if it's Franson, it may include a Lombardi or say Armstrong as a "dump", sort of how the Leafs got Franson in the first place.
Armstrong, there is another one - what happened to him? Did the Leafs just ask him to do something he wasn't suited for, or did injuries catch up with him? Honestly, he's exactly the type of player that VAN could use more of - that hard hitting hard playing defensive 3rd liner. His salary is high for that role, but they'll have some room... |
| Guest9221 |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 14:54:05
I think Komisarek needs to avoid Milan Lucic. I think Lucic has put a betting on this guy 3 or 4 years in a row. Actually Vancouver would be a good fit. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 10:54:13
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
I have to think that VAN would be reasonably happy with Gunnarson or Franson in return - both are good young defensive prospects with reasonable upside, VAN could use some good young defensemen, and would be good return for what is in effect a salary dump for VAN.
Komisarek - I'm not sure what to make of this guy, what happened to him? He was so promising coming out of MTL as a free agent, and then simply flopped in TOR. Did he buckle under the weight of his contract? Did he buckle because he was asked to do too much? Things in VAN won't be much different for him, he'd be expected to fill a top-4 role with the Canucks and would be counted on to use his big body a lot. I don't know if the change in scenery is enough for him to be salvaged - and we already have another defensive albatross to get rid of this year (Ballard)
Phaneuf still intrigues me, but I don't know if TOR is necessarily ready to deal him. Unlike Komy, I do think he would benefit from a change in scenery and responsibilities, and could thrive again in the west. But I don't see TOR trading their captain and de-facto #1 defenseman, even if he is overpaid and in over his head as captain.
Komisarek - the salary made his expectations, self imposed and media imposed, WAY too much for him to handle. And I agree with Beans in that Markov made him look awesome (although he did have a good year).
On the other hand, I disagree with Beans on Komisarek being a Beauchemin - he had a bit more offensive skill than Komi, and a little less grit, but overall I think he was undervalued, never overvalued IMHO.
Back to Luongo deals,
I think we all know that some salary has to return to Vancouver, if Toronto or any other team is taking on Luo - so, if it's Franson, it may include a Lombardi or say Armstrong as a "dump", sort of how the Leafs got Franson in the first place.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 10:39:43
Komiserak is Beauchimen in a different skin. Both are servicable defensemen who had the opportunity to play with superstars and it grossly inflated their value. Markov made Komisarek look far better than he was as did Pronger/Neidermayer with Beauchimen.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 09:41:43
I have to think that VAN would be reasonably happy with Gunnarson or Franson in return - both are good young defensive prospects with reasonable upside, VAN could use some good young defensemen, and would be good return for what is in effect a salary dump for VAN.
Komisarek - I'm not sure what to make of this guy, what happened to him? He was so promising coming out of MTL as a free agent, and then simply flopped in TOR. Did he buckle under the weight of his contract? Did he buckle because he was asked to do too much? Things in VAN won't be much different for him, he'd be expected to fill a top-4 role with the Canucks and would be counted on to use his big body a lot. I don't know if the change in scenery is enough for him to be salvaged - and we already have another defensive albatross to get rid of this year (Ballard)
Phaneuf still intrigues me, but I don't know if TOR is necessarily ready to deal him. Unlike Komy, I do think he would benefit from a change in scenery and responsibilities, and could thrive again in the west. But I don't see TOR trading their captain and de-facto #1 defenseman, even if he is overpaid and in over his head as captain. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 07:29:18
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Well Slozo, if you were Burke and i Gillis, i'd have accepted the Gunnarson or Franson and 2nd rounder, no questions asked. I prefer it to the deal with Komisarek but would consider that one too.
Here i am now hoping that MG somehow gets more value outta Lu than i expect!
Well I will tell you, I think if the Vancouver GM is smart, he will see good value in Komisarek. He has underperformed, and been a disappointment in Toronto, but I have a strong feeling that he could really shine in the right circumstances - and with a strong team in Vancouver, I think that might be it. Still overpaid, sure . . . but Vancouver will surely take on some salary in any deal.
Franson is another one - underutilised by Wilson, and IMHO, horribly mismanaged. We'll see how much Carlile liked him, if he is trade bait or not.
See Alex,
this is why we should be GMs - easy peasy! With a Gunnarsson/2nd rounder deal for Luongo, we're both happy . . . and I think we both get good value! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/19/2012 : 10:47:30
Well Slozo, if you were Burke and i Gillis, i'd have accepted the Gunnarson or Franson and 2nd rounder, no questions asked. I prefer it to the deal with Komisarek but would consider that one too.
Here i am now hoping that MG somehow gets more value outta Lu than i expect! |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/19/2012 : 10:30:40
quote:
Originally posted by mandree888
soo.... i belive komi also has a no trade cloause..... sigh (what was burke thinking) .......
here is the link from cap geek.
http://capgeek.com/charts.php?Team=4
anyone with a lock by their name has a no trade clause.
0.2 seconds
That is the time it would take for Komisarek to waive his no-trade clause, moving from a team where he was the whipping boy, sat off or got low minutes, and finished bottom 5, going to a team that was tops in the Western Conference where he would get a second chance.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 06/19/2012 : 06:04:13
upon review of my link ..... Phanuef DOESN'T hvae a no trade clause..... WOW!!! |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 06/19/2012 : 05:52:10
soo.... i belive komi also has a no trade cloause..... sigh (what was burke thinking) .......
here is the link from cap geek.
http://capgeek.com/charts.php?Team=4
anyone with a lock by their name has a no trade clause. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/19/2012 : 05:09:00
quote:
Originally posted by mandree888
you know slozo just to sweaten the deal throw in the rights to the RFA Cody Fanson.
he was being under used in TOR, TOR has a couple of rookies that they say will be NHL ready as soon as next year so throwing i the rights does nothing against TOR.
it only ensures the trade?
Done! We have a deal!
Truthfully, Cody Franson was certainly coveted by a few teams, and I think with his offensive upside and size, he's a guy who probably stays with Carlyle and gets used more than you-know-who did.
Gunnarsson might be looked at, I think, as a guy who has already sort of reached his potential. Although, we said that about White, and he had a dream season in Detroit soon afterward. Schenn won't go either, IMHO. He is a valuable cog, and that's a compliment.
So what I am saying is . . . I think Franson brings more value than Gunnar, so to me a deal with him in it means something more like:
To TO - Luongo
To 'Nucks - rights to Franson, Komisarek (they have to take a bit of salary, right?)
How's that sound? Frankly, not a bad deal for the Canucks, who with their injury history on the blueline in the tough western conference, would welcome two more big bodies, especially Franson. And Komi was playing well at the end of the year, and it'd be a fresh start for him after being the whipping boy here - something that has been a bit undeserved for the last year or so, at any rate.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 05:35:29
you know slozo just to sweaten the deal throw in the rights to the RFA Cody Fanson.
he was being under used in TOR, TOR has a couple of rookies that they say will be NHL ready as soon as next year so throwing i the rights does nothing against TOR.
it only ensures the trade? |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 05:30:33
I forgot about Phaneuf's no-trade clause. Ugh. Well, it's not like those things are impossible to get rid of, but . . . yeah.
TB out of the running now is huge. It also means that Lindbeck (Lindback? Quarterback? Jack Black?) kid is off the market for Toronto. And with Pittsburgh getting Vokoun . . . boy, it certainly could be Luongo to Toronto as it stands right now.
I really don't see another goalie coming close to Luongo in terms of fit here, and for what we need.
1) We need a goalie that will 100% stabilise the starter situation.
Check.
2) Someone with a proven track record.
Check.
3) And maybe almost more importantly for performance reasons . . . someone who can handle the immense pressure here.
Check.
It's just a matter of what it would take to get him. And here is my thinking . . . it'll be defence from Toronto going out. With the sudden emergence of Gardiner, I certainly think that outside of him alone, each defenceman (I would include Phaneuf, myself) is expendable for a price.
Perhaps it'll be Carl Gunnarsson. He brings lots of offensive upside, is responsible defensively, and if given more of a chance/more minutes . . . he'd run with it in Vancouver. And to me, on the Leafs, he is the most expendable in terms of where he fits (maybe Franson too). We all know that on paper, the Leafs have a pretty solid core of defencemen, it was just a very weak performance for a third of the season that killed this team, so I think that Vancouver would be interested in the young guys.
To Vancouver: Gunnarsson, 2nd rounder
To Toronto: Luongo
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 16:30:57
I heard the Luongo to Chi stuff brought up again yesterday, though i agree, it's a long shot and i don't know if i'd really wanna see it happen either!
As for Phaneuf, i wasn't aware there\s only a couple years left on his deal. That doesn't seem so bad, but it'd be nice if the Canucks could pawn off Ballard on them as part of the package as well! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 10:05:32
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Slozo....I'm one of the one's saying the asking price for Luongo won't be high, at least in my opinion, it can't be! I just don't think Gillis will want to take back such a big contract as Phaneuf's. If i were Burke, i would be low balling Gillis big time knowing that TB is now out of the running and Luongo's list is rumoured to be pretty small!
I would not be so sure about that - with the new (current) cap in place, VAN could more than afford to take on Phaneuf's contract. Phaneuf only has 2 more years on that deal as well, so its not like they'd be held down because of it.
Phaneuf has had a rough time in TOR, but I think TOR put too much onto him too early - he's not captain material, he's not particularly strong defensively, and he's not a #1 defenseman (despite his salary). Put him in a situation where he is not relied on in that way and I think you'd get to see some of the old Phaneuf back - the hard hitting offensive defenseman that is capable of 25 min's night and 40+ pts a year.
As for CHI - that was rumoured early on, but I think even Luongo balked at that - too much water under the bridge on both sides I think. The only good thing is that Luongo tends to play very well in their stadium... |
|
|
