Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

why just 3 years?


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#1 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:46 PM

Can someone please explain why they would only agree to a 3 year deal? and not longer? Corey is hitting his prime and will obviously still be in his prime 3 years from now, don't you guys think that we should've done a long term deal? Like 5-6 years? Quick got a 10 year deal (i'm not in favour of that long of a deal, having learned from the Luongo experience) Carey price is apparently set to sign for 6-7 years as per Bob Mckenzie

Schneider in my books is just as good as those guys. I hope 3 years from now he doesn't become too expensive that we are unable to re-sign him.
  • 0

#2 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,090 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:47 PM

*
POPULAR

Roberto Luongo.
  • 11

#3 Joffrey Lupul

Joffrey Lupul

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,395 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:48 PM

Roberto Luongo.


  • 2

2zi66q8.jpgnv20o20imarksmanx_zpsb4f8b662.jpg?55

small.pngGM - STHS Signature Credit goes to Vintage Canuck.


#4 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,502 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:52 PM

*
POPULAR

Because 12 years on an unproven goaltender is a wee bit too much?
  • 5
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#5 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,393 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:53 PM

Because as of now he hasn't proven he is worth of the big bucks. Why would he sign for longer than 3 years, if after starting for 3 years he proves he can be an elite goalie, and command a lot higher salary?
Its also safe for us incase for some reason he doesnt handle being a starter well.
  • 3
Posted Image

#6 Bilbro Baggins

Bilbro Baggins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,262 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:56 PM

*
POPULAR

Because MG learned his lesson, that's why.
  • 16

Posted Image


#7 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:56 PM

Because 12 years on an unproven goaltender is a wee bit too much?


where did you get 12 years from? I'm not talking about Lui, and I also clearly stated I'm not in favour of 10+ year contracts. I said 5-6 years
  • 3

#8 xCANUCKAHOLICx

xCANUCKAHOLICx

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:56 PM

because its a smarter move for both sides
  • 2

#9 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,519 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:58 PM

*
POPULAR

Because MG learned his lesson, that's why.

What lesson?

I don't see any problems with Roberto Luongo's 12 year contract?
  • 5

Posted Image


#10 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,502 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:58 PM

where did you get 12 years from? I'm not talking about Lui, and I also clearly stated I'm not in favour of 10+ year contracts. I said 5-6 years


It was meant at a jab on the insane long term contracts. Relax.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#11 Strombone1

Strombone1

    GDT Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:59 PM

what a blow to the organization if cory flops.. hoping that wont happen
  • 1

Player of the Game - Wall of Fame
2013-14 GDT Registrations
Canucks Game Prediction Challenge


#12 Grape

Grape

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:00 PM

*
POPULAR

Roberto Luongo.

Roberto Luongo's 12 year contract is only talked negatively because of Cory Schneider. His stats prove that he is a worth 5.3 mil/year for 12 years. The people that think he's overrated are bandwagoners. They've only seen Cory Schneider and his performance in the finals last year compared to Luongo. And wonder why he's paid 5.3 mil/year compared to Schneider's contract. If Cory Schneider hadn't emerged as a starting goalie, would Luongo be talked about so negatively? No. A 92.8% save percentage in 2011 and a 92.0 save percentage in 2012 gives no reason why Luongo is overrated and has a bad contract.
  • 24
Posted Image Posted Image
Sig made by The Great Honey Badger™

Don't Click!

#13 Underachieving Hero of CDC

Underachieving Hero of CDC

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Joined: 12-February 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:02 PM

Hopefully Gillis has learned his lesson. Really long contracts bit you in the arse.
  • 0

#14 Kassian

Kassian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:03 PM

An honest answer would be that they didn't sign him longer because had they agreed on a 5-6 year term, Schneider's cap hit would have to increase.

For example, sign someone at 3 years @ 5m. Or sign them for 6 years @ 35m. Just an example.
  • 0

Posted Image


#15 gragnanifan1

gragnanifan1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:04 PM

Roberto Luongo's 12 year contract is only talked negatively because of Cory Schneider. His stats prove that he is a worth 5.3 mil/year for 12 years. The people that think he's overrated are bandwagoners. They've only seen Cory Schneider and his performance in the finals last year compared to Luongo. And wonder why he's paid 5.3 mil/year compared to Schneider's contract. If Cory Schneider hadn't emerged as a starting goalie, would Luongo be talked about so negatively? No. A 92.8% save percentage in 2011 and a 92.0 save percentage in 2012 gives no reason why Luongo is overrated and has a bad contract.


yep
u took it right out of me
  • 3
Posted Image
credit goes to allons-y
Posted Image NHL 13 GM Connected -GM of the Hurricanes http://forum.canucks...ed-league-xbox/

#16 Monty085

Monty085

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:04 PM

Becuase they realized the contract they gave Luongo was setting him up for failure from the beginning and they don't want to make that mistake again
  • 0

#17 keslerian one

keslerian one

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:08 PM

3~4 years for a goalie seems to be the ideal length of contracts. You just don't know if they can maintain their stats year in year out, and even if they do, you may have someone who's younger that can be just as effective (ie Schneider on Luongo).

Quick was sensational, but so was Luongo before he got his 12 year contract. Too bad when Lu was awesome, the team wasn't as good as it is now.
  • 0

#18 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,090 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:12 PM

Roberto Luongo's 12 year contract is only talked negatively because of Cory Schneider. His stats prove that he is a worth 5.3 mil/year for 12 years. The people that think he's overrated are bandwagoners. They've only seen Cory Schneider and his performance in the finals last year compared to Luongo. And wonder why he's paid 5.3 mil/year compared to Schneider's contract. If Cory Schneider hadn't emerged as a starting goalie, would Luongo be talked about so negatively? No. A 92.8% save percentage in 2011 and a 92.0 save percentage in 2012 gives no reason why Luongo is overrated and has a bad contract.


This may all be true, but you can't say Gillis didn't look at how Lu's contract has turned out when deciding on a deal for Schnieds. Especially with yet another promising tender in the minors.

Edited by CanucksSayEh, 28 June 2012 - 10:14 PM.

  • 0

#19 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,228 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 09

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:13 PM

What lesson?

I don't see any problems with Roberto Luongo's 12 year contract?

Maybe because it's a factor that affects his trade value and 12 years is a really long time considering he signed in his early 30's or something rather than mid-late 20's like Quick for example.
  • 0

#20 GradinToSmyl

GradinToSmyl

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:17 PM

Roberto Luongo's 12 year contract is only talked negatively because of Cory Schneider. His stats prove that he is a worth 5.3 mil/year for 12 years. The people that think he's overrated are bandwagoners. They've only seen Cory Schneider and his performance in the finals last year compared to Luongo. And wonder why he's paid 5.3 mil/year compared to Schneider's contract. If Cory Schneider hadn't emerged as a starting goalie, would Luongo be talked about so negatively? No. A 92.8% save percentage in 2011 and a 92.0 save percentage in 2012 gives no reason why Luongo is overrated and has a bad contract.


How the hell can you say the stats over a couple of years make it worth a 12 year deal?
  • 0
After a few days here, I am surprised half of you got the anti-bot question correct to register for this site.

#21 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:17 PM

Can someone please explain why they would only agree to a 3 year deal? and not longer? Corey is hitting his prime and will obviously still be in his prime 3 years from now, don't you guys think that we should've done a long term deal? Like 5-6 years? Quick got a 10 year deal (i'm not in favour of that long of a deal, having learned from the Luongo experience) Carey price is apparently set to sign for 6-7 years as per Bob Mckenzie

Schneider in my books is just as good as those guys. I hope 3 years from now he doesn't become too expensive that we are unable to re-sign him.

In 3 years Cory will either be a star or average and the Canucks won;t be saddled with a Luongo type contract !!
  • 0

#22 Wilbur

Wilbur

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:20 PM

Because as of now he hasn't proven he is worth of the big bucks. Why would he sign for longer than 3 years, if after starting for 3 years he proves he can be an elite goalie, and command a lot higher salary?
Its also safe for us incase for some reason he doesnt handle being a starter well.

Bang on.

3 years is safe for both parties. If Schneider can't hack it as a starter, the Canucks are only on the tab for 3 years at not a too onerous price. It wouldn't be an impossible contract to get rid of. If Schneider turns into a star, he'll still be young enough at the end of the contract to cash in big for a number of years (heh, hopefully with the Canucks).

This is a deal that really makes a lot of sense (which is weird to see in and around July 1st). The Canucks are putting their faith in Schneider with a hefty raise for 3 years while Schneider probably took a little less than what he could be worth over the next three years because he has to acknowledge he has not proven anything as a starter yet.
  • 0

#23 Canucks FTW!!!

Canucks FTW!!!

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 09

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:29 PM

Eddie Lack says Hi
  • 1

#24 Bob Singh

Bob Singh

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,011 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:30 PM

your books are not the same as my books
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit for "Great Save Luongo" sig goes to -Vintage Canuck-
Credit for Olympic sig goes to Motzaburger.

#25 Grape

Grape

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:31 PM

How the hell can you say the stats over a couple of years make it worth a 12 year deal?

I was just lazy to post some of his other stats, look up Roberto Luongo on Wikipedia and you'll see why he's worth it.
  • 0
Posted Image Posted Image
Sig made by The Great Honey Badger™

Don't Click!

#26 10Bure14Burrows

10Bure14Burrows

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:34 PM


Because we r gonna trade him for any good DEFENCEMAN at trade deadline !

This is mike gillis policy . Try to understand man

Edited by 10Bure14Burrows, 28 June 2012 - 10:35 PM.

  • 0
Forever Canuck !

#27 gdcanucks02

gdcanucks02

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:37 PM

Because if he doesnt win the stanley cup in the next 3 years the fans will run him out of town for not doing what he was signed to do. We would then have the exact same situation we have right now with a young hotshot goalie in Lack with no pressure of winning outperforming our starter and that way we can just not have to worry about trading his ridiculous contract (no im not saying its ridiculous but at 4 million per its a very small 1.3 million less than Luongo's "ridiculous"contract) and that way we can maintain our goalie graveyard reputation with our unbelievably high expectations on one player to deliver a cup to Vancouver. The fans and media basically deciding luongos fate in Vancouver will be a turning point in whether or not star players want to come and play for the Canucks.
  • 2

#28 Monty085

Monty085

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:39 PM

Because if he doesnt win the stanley cup in the next 3 years the fans will run him out of town for not doing what he was signed to do. We would then have the exact same situation we have right now with a young hotshot goalie in Lack with no pressure of winning outperforming our starter and that way we can just not have to worry about trading his ridiculous contract (no im not saying its ridiculous but at 4 million per its a very small 1.3 million less than Luongo's "ridiculous"contract) and that way we can maintain our goalie graveyard reputation with our unbelievably high expectations on one player to deliver a cup to Vancouver. The fans and media basically deciding luongos fate in Vancouver will be a turning point in whether or not star players want to come and play for the Canucks.


I sure as frack wouldn't play here if I were them
  • 0

#29 GradinToSmyl

GradinToSmyl

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 12

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:39 PM

Why 2 years?
Why 4 years?
Why 5 years?
Why 6 years?

Because.
  • 2
After a few days here, I am surprised half of you got the anti-bot question correct to register for this site.

#30 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:15 PM

Roberto Luongo's 12 year contract is only talked negatively because of Cory Schneider. His stats prove that he is a worth 5.3 mil/year for 12 years. The people that think he's overrated are bandwagoners. They've only seen Cory Schneider and his performance in the finals last year compared to Luongo. And wonder why he's paid 5.3 mil/year compared to Schneider's contract. If Cory Schneider hadn't emerged as a starting goalie, would Luongo be talked about so negatively? No. A 92.8% save percentage in 2011 and a 92.0 save percentage in 2012 gives no reason why Luongo is overrated and has a bad contract.


This
  • 1

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.