CookieCrumbs Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 How's this for fruitless. Even though Hamhuis has played in 77 more career games, Phaneuf has:More than double the amount of career goalsNearly 100 more total points He's also been an NHL All-Star 3 times, which is 3 times more than Hamhuis. And let's not forget the numerous bone-crunching, highlight-reel hits that were a regularity when he first broke into the league (the new No-Hitting League has had an adverse effect on Phaneuf's development). Since "Church Appearances" isn't a measurable amongst NHL players, explain to me exactly on what basis that you think Hamhuis is a better player than Phaneuf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I really don't care about Mike Gillis. His interviews annoy me because he just reeks of condescension and arrogance, but that's his mandate. I call it like I see it and could well be wrong. This Luongo fire-sale could've been entirely avoided. What Luongo fire sale? Just because you say it, does not make it reality. I wouldn't be so sure of that. Garrison is not an upgrade on Salo. We're also down Rome, who is/was underrated relative to his cost. This team's record when Salo has been injured, historically, has not been good at all, and he was another unsung hero of this team that will be missed. I think the Garrison deal stinks, and it's not going to turn out well. Garrison is ten years younger with zero injuries. Salo is on his last legs. A great player, but his injury history can't be ignored. Rome? Seriously. The definition of a plug defensman. He is easily replaceable. Once again KoES, unless you know Marty Mcfly, you don't know how things are going to turn out. Saying that I "hate" him isn't much different than me saying that you "love" him. Do you love him, Canuck-a-nuck? Have I ever even said that he should be fired? NO! So I don't know what you're talking about. The point of these message boards is for fans to discuss. He's made moved that I disagree with, which causes tens of CDC fanboys to gang up on me. That's fine. And which question am I evading? Please, ask. I feel I'm in here all day. Your disdain for the man, due to his arrogance(?) isn't neutral. Thanks for explaining what these message boards are for, tips. What does "I feel I'm in here all day" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Careful, some people get upset when hard facts are brought into the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Whose upset? This is a Canucks website. We defend our players. Stats junkies like yourself and KoES can crunch numbers all you want, Dan Hamhuis has been able to help his team farther into the post season than Phaneuf ever could or ever will. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Because we're a veteran team, built to win now, and we can't take a risk that Schneider somehow can't carry the load, or can't carry the load enough in his first year or two of being a starter. To think that it'll be a seamless transition from playing 25 - 30 games a year to 60 - 65 is optimistic. "Growing pains" aren't really something that this team can afford to go through, at this point. There's urgency right now if we're serious about winning a Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I'm not saying that at all - but nice inference. The point is that it's possible. Every conceivable event has a probability. For you all to just assume that Schneider's numbers would hold up under a 65-game workload, in his rookie season as a starter, is very optimistic (though that appears to be the name of the game around here - certainly the most optimistic sports fans who's team has never won a championship). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 And look where all that talent has gotten Phaneuf. His captaincy with the Leafs is a joke. And by fawning all over Dion you prove that you are either a Flames or Leafs fan. Truly sorry about that King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Stats junkies who try to ignore the +29 vs -10 advantage Hamhius had over Phaneuf - that's only a 39 goal differential - not significant at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Like I said - I'm happy to let Steve Yzerman arbitrate this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Stats junkies who try to ignore the +29 vs -10 advantage Hamhius had over Phaneuf - that's only a 39 goal differential - not significant at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 "It's possible". What, exactly, do you disagree with about my point that it's IMpossible that Schneider could have finished the year with a below .900 GAA if he played an extra 20-25 games? I'm dying to know how you can twist that math in your own mind without becoming a failed amateur Houdini. I'll repeat, with emphasis. Schneider would have had to have averaged 5 GAA the remaining 20-25 games. That means that when (not if) he lets in 2 one game, he's have to let in 8 goals the next game to square that average up. When he lets in 2 goals a game two games in a row, that means he'd have to let in eleven (11) goals the next game to, again, meet that average. See how this turns from an amusing scenario into an Alice in Wonderland farce? Of course you do! You're not that stupid. You're just a typical troll who loves the attention. And I'm happy to provide it for you, at least for a while. There's more chance of you winning the 649 lotto two draws in a row with a single combo than for Schneider to give up 5 goals a game on average for an extra 20-25 games last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Why would it matter? According to you, there is little difference between the best and worst goalie in the league. Even if one were to cut you some slack, it's not exactly like there's a huge gulf as between the talents of Brodeur and whoever his ghost backup happens to be this year (which again, according to you, wouldn't mean much since the GAA are within a "narrow" range). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Say what you want about Schneider and his future playoff performances, but they're really empty words, because he hasn't been there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 What's your point? Not once did I say that Schneider was going to average an SVP < .900, which would've made him the worst starting goalie in the NHL. All I'm doing is bringing up the point that maybe/probably he won't be as good, statistically, as the starter. His numbers this past year were other-worldly, and you guys are probably going to be disappointed if you're expecting a .925 SVP and a 1.96 GAA over the course of 60 - 65 games in his first year as an NHL starter in Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Oh, of course it does. And I bet you'd rather have Manny Malhotra than Jonathan Toews, which doesn't only make you a Canuck fan, it makes you a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 It's very simple: The Canucks + Luongo + the return for Schneider ARE BETTER THAN The Canucks + Schneider + the return for Luongo Is that clear enough for you (and everyone else)? THIS IS MY ENTIRE PREMISE BROKEN DOWN IN 3 SIMPLE LINES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 It's very simple: The Canucks + Luongo + the return for Schneider ARE BETTER THAN The Canucks + Schneider + the return for Luongo Is that clear enough for you (and everyone else)? THIS IS MY ENTIRE PREMISE BROKEN DOWN IN 3 SIMPLE LINES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Of course you didn't say it in exactly those words, but like a very poor obfuscating lawyer, you said exactly that in a directly emotional context with your "very worried" comment. Why would you be very worried if it's literally impossible to drop below the "acceptable" range (your conclusion) of .900 GAA a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 @EnricoCicconeLeafs are still interested in Luongo. Burke made a call in Vancouver end of last week! #mapleleafs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Grain of salt tweet, Ciccone is a former NHL'er (as Halford at PHT put it, "Former Canuck!...and Hab, Cap, 'Cane, 'Hawk, North Star, 'Ning.") so he isn't a complete outsider, but it probably doesn't mean much unless Luongo wants to go to a sans-Allaire Leafs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.