EDLER.IS.BEAST Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I'd rather get an offensive center. Somebody could move to the wing or ideally Kesler can be on the 3rd line. Kesler will still get his minutes but he will be in a more defensive role. Kesler isnt a passer and he struggles to create offense. Kesler would be perfect on the 3rd line against every teams top players and can still chip. The 3rd line could very well get more minutes then the 2nd line. Canucks Need Offense. Last 2 playoffs have shown this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruffy05 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Three things common that I find among a large contingent of CDC posters is as follows: 1. A penchant for snap/rash decisions based purely on emotion and/or not fully formed opinion. Anybody willing to "dump Luongo for a 7th round pick so we can get out of his contract" is guilty of this one. Luongo is still a top goalie and, compensation wise, is not overpaid if you look at the full sample size. Yes, it is for a lot of years, but that is, in part, because it is one of those circumvention contracts. Luongo turns any team, at the very least, into a perennial playoff threat. Once you make the playoffs, anything can happen. Luongo has significant value. This is business. Don't let emotions get in the way, otherwise you are lost. 2. A severe overvaluing of prospects. Prospects are awesome, you can dream and hope on them. They get the blood flowing. We all know what we will get with Kesler, but who knows what Bjugstad may be! Right? He may even be better! Well, yes, he may. But he may not. Imagine a scenario a couple years ado where we could have traded him for Cam Barker, Al Montoya, Rob Schremp, Gilbert Brule, Ryan Parent, Matt Lashoff.... A couple of years ago this would have looked like highway robbery. Now? Not so much. Bjugstad has a chance at becoming better than Kesler. He has a very good chance of becoming nobody anybody cares about. Prospect flame out. A good idea for determining prospect value: Do it how game theorists calculate risk. I will use EA Sports style ratings to keep things simple. A player in his prime has a rating of 84. A prospect has a rating of 70 (not as good right now) has a 50% chance of being rated 92 (much better). What that prospects value should be to you? Half way (50%) between the two numbers or only 81. Any accomplished game theorist and mathematician with those numbers would not make that trade. 3. This one is more annoying. I've seen it many times. A rumor or report says the asking price for Luongo is Bujdstad++ and all of a sudden people start pulling in player from all over like Kesler and Raymond and Tanev and and for Bjugstad and players far better than him. This frustrating. This is the same as walking into a store to buy a toaster and end up leaving with a big screen TV, new cutlery, a new bedroom set, no pants and a massive hole in your wallet. Most likely? You just get the toaster. Sometimes other players are included. They are called throw-ins for a reason, non-core, non valued players used to balance out perceived unbalanced scenarios and make the numbers work. And importantly, I see a whole lot of turd polishing in here. If you are trading a guy 'to get rid of him', then any information you put as positives for why the other team even wants him do not matter. If he was as good as you make him out to be, you would keep him, you wouldn't just 'get rid of him'. My personal belief? Luongo for a bluechip prospect, a serviceable player and a pick. If we add anything in it wouldn't be much more valuable than an Andrew Alberts. The mission is to trade Luongo, not Luongo and a huge chunk of the forward corps... Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruffy05 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Kes on the wing and Vinny playing C makes more sense like when Sundin was here, that gives us two legit scoring lines.. It doesn't matter if Kesler struggles to create offense, that's the point of getting Lecavalier in the first place, he should pot at least 30 with Lecavalier setting him up. How would Schroeder taking the 3rd line center spot (if he makes the team) create controversy? It was the same thing as last year with Cody on that line except Schroeder is better defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 <p> Three things common that I find among a large contingent of CDC posters is as follows: 1. A penchant for snap/rash decisions based purely on emotion and/or not fully formed opinion. Anybody willing to "dump Luongo for a 7th round pick so we can get out of his contract" is guilty of this one. Luongo is still a top goalie and, compensation wise, is not overpaid if you look at the full sample size. Yes, it is for a lot of years, but that is, in part, because it is one of those circumvention contracts. Luongo turns any team, at the very least, into a perennial playoff threat. Once you make the playoffs, anything can happen. Luongo has significant value. This is business. Don't let emotions get in the way, otherwise you are lost. 2. A severe overvaluing of prospects. Prospects are awesome, you can dream and hope on them. They get the blood flowing. We all know what we will get with Kesler, but who knows what Bjugstad may be! Right? He may even be better! Well, yes, he may. But he may not. Imagine a scenario a couple years ado where we could have traded him for Cam Barker, Al Montoya, Rob Schremp, Gilbert Brule, Ryan Parent, Matt Lashoff.... A couple of years ago this would have looked like highway robbery. Now? Not so much. Bjugstad has a chance at becoming better than Kesler. He has a very good chance of becoming nobody anybody cares about. Prospect flame out. A good idea for determining prospect value: Do it how game theorists calculate risk. I will use EA Sports style ratings to keep things simple. A player in his prime has a rating of 84. A prospect has a rating of 70 (not as good right now) has a 50% chance of being rated 92 (much better). What that prospects value should be to you? Half way (50%) between the two numbers or only 81. Any accomplished game theorist and mathematician with those numbers would not make that trade. 3. This one is more annoying. I've seen it many times. A rumor or report says the asking price for Luongo is Bujdstad++ and all of a sudden people start pulling in player from all over like Kesler and Raymond and Tanev and and for Bjugstad and players far better than him. This frustrating. This is the same as walking into a store to buy a toaster and end up leaving with a big screen TV, new cutlery, a new bedroom set, no pants and a massive hole in your wallet. Most likely? You just get the toaster. Sometimes other players are included. They are called throw-ins for a reason, non-core, non valued players used to balance out perceived unbalanced scenarios and make the numbers work. And importantly, I see a whole lot of turd polishing in here. If you are trading a guy 'to get rid of him', then any information you put as positives for why the other team even wants him do not matter. If he was as good as you make him out to be, you would keep him, you wouldn't just 'get rid of him'. My personal belief? Luongo for a bluechip prospect, a serviceable player and a pick. If we add anything in it wouldn't be much more valuable than an Andrew Alberts. The mission is to trade Luongo, not Luongo and a huge chunk of the forward corps... Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I agree with you, Kesler would make one of the best 3rd liners in the league, and it sure would give us one of the deepest scoring threats. But if we stick a rookie like Schroeder in there it would create controversy, and if we sign a veteran UFA it would surely cost a lot of cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegionOfDoom Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Cs2016 that video was epic! Lol still laughing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EDLER.IS.BEAST Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Kesler won 53.6% of his faceoffs as a top guy at the dot, Lecavalier only won 47.8%. Why would we move Ryan to the wing? Lecavalier is far removed from his 06-07 season. Kesler has far more points since 08 when he was given a role with some prominence. Currently, as of right now if I had to pick between them? I think Kesler is the better center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruffy05 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 <p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruffy05 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Kesler is the better center, that's why it doesn't make sense to me to put him on the 3rd line. We don't need 06/07 Lecavalier, he put up 50 points in 65 or less games played the past two seasons, 70 in a full season a year before those and was a point per game player in the 2011 playoffs. Those two on the same line could do some serious damage. Either get Vinny to play wing or just put in Kes for the important faceoffs. The only thing I don't like of course is his cap hit. I'd rather the Canucks go after Doan though, lower cap hit, would look good on the 1st or 2nd line and Kesler keeps his center position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 All and all Lecavalier is not a good choice for us. I would go as low as Komiserak and a 1st rounder instead. At least Komo's contract expires soon, or we can always AHL his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckfanfromafrica Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Three things common that I find among a large contingent of CDC posters is as follows: 1. A penchant for snap/rash decisions based purely on emotion and/or not fully formed opinion. Anybody willing to "dump Luongo for a 7th round pick so we can get out of his contract" is guilty of this one. Luongo is still a top goalie and, compensation wise, is not overpaid if you look at the full sample size. Yes, it is for a lot of years, but that is, in part, because it is one of those circumvention contracts. Luongo turns any team, at the very least, into a perennial playoff threat. Once you make the playoffs, anything can happen. Luongo has significant value. This is business. Don't let emotions get in the way, otherwise you are lost. 2. A severe overvaluing of prospects. Prospects are awesome, you can dream and hope on them. They get the blood flowing. We all know what we will get with Kesler, but who knows what Bjugstad may be! Right? He may even be better! Well, yes, he may. But he may not. Imagine a scenario a couple years ado where we could have traded him for Cam Barker, Al Montoya, Rob Schremp, Gilbert Brule, Ryan Parent, Matt Lashoff.... A couple of years ago this would have looked like highway robbery. Now? Not so much. Bjugstad has a chance at becoming better than Kesler. He has a very good chance of becoming nobody anybody cares about. Prospect flame out. A good idea for determining prospect value: Do it how game theorists calculate risk. I will use EA Sports style ratings to keep things simple. A player in his prime has a rating of 84. A prospect has a rating of 70 (not as good right now) has a 50% chance of being rated 92 (much better). What that prospects value should be to you? Half way (50%) between the two numbers or only 81. Any accomplished game theorist and mathematician with those numbers would not make that trade. 3. This one is more annoying. I've seen it many times. A rumor or report says the asking price for Luongo is Bujdstad++ and all of a sudden people start pulling in player from all over like Kesler and Raymond and Tanev and and for Bjugstad and players far better than him. This frustrating. This is the same as walking into a store to buy a toaster and end up leaving with a big screen TV, new cutlery, a new bedroom set, no pants and a massive hole in your wallet. Most likely? You just get the toaster. Sometimes other players are included. They are called throw-ins for a reason, non-core, non valued players used to balance out perceived unbalanced scenarios and make the numbers work. And importantly, I see a whole lot of turd polishing in here. If you are trading a guy 'to get rid of him', then any information you put as positives for why the other team even wants him do not matter. If he was as good as you make him out to be, you would keep him, you wouldn't just 'get rid of him'. My personal belief? Luongo for a bluechip prospect, a serviceable player and a pick. If we add anything in it wouldn't be much more valuable than an Andrew Alberts. The mission is to trade Luongo, not Luongo and a huge chunk of the forward corps... Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I'm sorry, it was a long time since I was last on... or maybe the emoticon is not showing up for me. What does < p > mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I'm sorry, it was a long time since I was last on... or maybe the emoticon is not showing up for me. What does < p > mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Slightly off-topic, but Pat Quinn has suggested that the Canucks retire Pavel Bure's number. Just hours after Pat Quinn announced Pavel Bure's induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame on June 26, 2012, he joined BMac and Taylor on the TEAM 1040 to discuss Pavel's career, his accomplishments, his character, and why Pavel should have his number retired by the Vancouver Canucks. Throughout the interview, Quinn was very supportive of Pavel, offering praise, defending his controversial departure from Vancouver, and providing his opinion on why Bure should have his number retired by the Canucks as well as why Pavel was a special player. "Pavel certainly ranked up there, and when he was on the attack, there was nobody better." "If the Canucks are wise at all, they'll come out and ask him to be there." "If you're going to recognize anybody, you probably should recognize the most electrifying player we've ever had in uniform. We've had some great players, but nobody, nobody, was as electrifying as him." Pat Quinn wholeheartedly supports the retirement of Pavel Bure's number into the rafters of Rogers Arena. This is a follow-up to the Valeri Bure interview posted last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlas=d Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 The question would be which number... 10 or 96? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 obviously 10... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 And according to this regular twitter user, Burke is flying to Vancouver. https://twitter.com/...SocialAssassin2 SamJam and I are trying to squeeze his sources out of him but he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EDLER.IS.BEAST Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 But 10 is such a common number... 96 he can have any day, 10 I don't know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I just realized something. Burke is in a hurry to get this deal done, or at least make good progress on it because he wants to know how much money he can spare to offer Parise. If he knows he is not getting Luongo, then he can give Parise a big offer. If he knows he can get Luongo at the price he is willing to pay, then he won't make Parise a big offer, but he can tell Parise that Luongo is coming his way and thus making Toronto a more attractive destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 So is 19.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.