Is Luongo to the Maple Leafs close? Depends on the meaning of ‘close’

Here’s yet another reason that the NHL lockout needs to end right the heck now: the labour stoppage has robbed us of the glorious ending to the Roberto Luongo saga. It’s completely unfair and borderline torture to be left hanging in this way, like AMC making Breaking Bad fans wait a full year for the second half of season 5.

This is every Breaking Bad fan reacting to the split-season structure:

Except crazier.

But, like that Youtube guy that perfectly predicted the season 4 finale, Sportsnet’s John Shannon claims to have figured out how this whole ordeal ends. On Wednesday, in a televised discussion with Nick Kypreos, Shannon said that the Canucks have a Luongo deal in place with the Toronto Maple Leafs.

The only thing holding up the deal is that, thanks to the lockout, Luongo doesn’t currently play for them. But, supposing the NHL’s current proposal is accepted and the season begins next month, “Roberto Luongo is staying in Canada, and will be a Toronto Maple Leaf by November 2nd.”

Of course this would all come out the same day Daniel published a take on why the Canucks might need both Luongo and Schneider. Poor Daniel. But, while it could unfortunately render yesterday’s writing obsolete, this is the best possible outcome for anyone hoping to see Roberto Luongo on 24/7 Red Wings/Maple Leafs. But is it true? Mike Gillis appeared on the Team 1040 Thursday morning, where Jason Botchford put the question to him. Is a Luongo to Toronto close?

“The definition of ‘close’ is something that is different for everybody,” Gillis responded. (After all, what if Botchford meant six-time Academy Award nominated actress Glenn Close? There’s just no way of knowing.) Gillis continued:

“I’m not sure why John would say that because that’s certainly not the case, but everyone is entitled to speculate on whatever they’d like to speculate on. We’ve moved very slowly on any discussion Roberto Luongo, we’ll trade him when we get what we want for him or we won’t trade him. And Either way that’s fine with me. You know, if we can do something that’s gonna help us and move our team forward in different areas, we’re certainly going to consider it, but that hasn’t occurred yet so I’m not quite sure why that would be said.”

Okay, so that’s not quite a no. In fact, it’s a delectably shifty response, especially if you pause on that first line. Here’s a very astute observation from Taj Kang:

 

Is that true, former U.S. President Bill Clinton?

Completely unhelpful.

We’ll have more on this tomorrow.

Tags: , , ,

9 comments

  1. DanD
    October 18, 2012

    That’s pretty typical Mike Gillis in any interview. “We’ll do a thing if we want to do that thing, and if we don’t want to do that thing, we won’t do it. Think what you want about it, or don’t, or whatever.” Always fascinating.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  2. Nee
    October 18, 2012

    “The definition of ‘close’ is something that is different for everybody”

    The fact that Gillis didn’t even address the Toronto part of the comment is suspicious. It would have been easy enough to say “we have no trade in place with Toronto” or “we’re looking at a number of teams”, like he has said many times previously. It appeared like he was dodging the question…not the typical Gillis screw-with-the-media-speculation-because-I-can.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  3. BakerGeorgeT
    October 18, 2012

    That Mike Gillis sure did fail Poli Sci 101. You don’t answer a question by trying to define a word, you completely ignore the question and ask your own question that has nothing to do with the original inquiry. It would have been better had GMMG answered Botch like this: “What would you do if you had Roberto Luongo on your team?”

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)
    • Elcin
      October 30, 2012

      good for Sundin. I was dying to get him for the Rangers, but what the hell! What person in their right mind takes 3 mil over $10 miiolln! No one! And he isn’t a greedy bastard—he stayed with Toronto last year, and he is a quiet and faithful Hall of Famer

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Brent
    October 18, 2012

    Could you find a worse picture of Luongo?

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
    • Harrison Mooney
      October 18, 2012

      Yes. You have no idea.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
      • brent
        October 19, 2012

        Bring em on!

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  5. Abby
    October 18, 2012

    Dang it, I don’t know what to feel anymore.
    My Luongo emotions have been flip flopping since April. Somebody just do something concrete, please. Tell me what to feel about this goalie fellow.

    I can’t take this hello and goodbye and maybe it’s good if he stays and maybe he’s going to Toronto and maybe they’re all rumors and I FREAKIN STILL LOVE THAT GOALIE SO SHUT UP AND LET ME HAVE FEELINGS.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  6. akidd
    October 19, 2012

    funny, i’ve been quite adamant as a supporter of the idea that Lou needs to move on for either him or the canucks to have success. but now, lou doesn’t have total power over the canucks and av any more i’ve kind of softened. 40-50 starts each for lou and schneider wouldn’t be the worst workload in the world. probably a pretty decent workload seeings that ‘hockey’ has been changed to ‘goalie’ ,as mg put it.

    as for cap hit well…it doesn’t seem to really matter anymore. it’s all gone higglety-pigglety. if the league is proposing reducing the cap to 50% of revenue(which will surely drop this year) without any clawbacks, pretty much every competitive team is scr*wed anyway.

    and since lou has been so classy( and funny) during this whole goalie ordeal maybe he IS mentally tough enough.

    plus, the leafs, yikes. ‘lou in the cotu’ could quicly become as uncomfortable as a ricky gervais script. just can’t wish that on the guy. and the only thing worse than lou imploding in t.o. would be him succeeding in t.o.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)