Strombone1 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 hmm i never heard of the Oilers being interested.. this is news to me. i would not trade him to the Oilers - our division rivals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Regardless, apparently you may have missed the fact that Devallano works for Illitch, and as his Senior VP, has some authority to speak on behalf of the Red-Wings - he's been there 30 years since Illitch bought the team, probably not by misrepresenting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li'l Fra Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I like pancakes...but you think like a waffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I made bacon dipped in pancake batter yesterday morning, and it was awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I never did care much for waffles. I don't like the way butter pools in those little divots - so hard to spread it evenly. Pancakes on the other hand, love em. Buttermilk, buckwheat, doesn't matter. Give me some of them. Bacon in pancake batter sounds like a must try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Yes - but YOU don't work for Mike Illitch. You said "I imagine Devellano's boss..." So what am I doing? Just throwing the totally ridiculous "you can't speak for Washington!" argument that you used at me right back in your face. If I can't make an opinion about what Washington might want to do given their goaltending situation, why can you make an opinion on Mike Illitch's feelings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I'm curious - you've gone on at great length in this thread that the Canucks should have moved Schneider, and still should move Schneider, so I'm wondering how this quote of yours fits that argument? "This is exactly why it makes no sense to hold on to Luongo." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Where have I contradicted the stance that for this veteran-laden, built-to-win-now-with-a-closing-window team, Roberto Luongo is the more logical goaltender than Cory Schneider? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 What's your point? Didn't you read my last response? IT'S TOO LATE! The damage has been done. It doesn't matter that I think Luongo is the more logical goaltender for this team, he is gone. And when I wrote that, I knew then that he was as good as gone, too. The point is that Mike Gillis has made a MISTAKE by not trading Schneider. Do you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Because it's too late haha. Because Gillis should have moved Schneider before he earned the starting role.. Now no one doubts that he's earned a shot as a legitimate starting goaltender. In other words, Gillis should have moved Schneider before his value got so high. You're like the Energizer Bunny of denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yes, exactly! You're finally getting it! The jist of it is that Mike Gillis got GREEDY! He loved having two elite goaltenders, and even though Schneider should've probably been moved after his rookie season in the NHL, he just instead hung on to them. The gamble worked until Luongo got pulled in the playoffs, the team went forward with Schneider, and the rest is history. We're now left trading a guy when his value has never been lower. That's why it was a mistake. Trading is a buy low/sell high game. It would've been far smarter to trade Schneider when his value was very high, and thus gotten back a piece of very high value himself. As I've said before, the fundamental equation is this: Vancouver Canucks with Luongo plus consideration received for Schneider are better than Vancouver Canucks with Schneider plus consideration received for Luongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yes, exactly! You're finally getting it! The jist of it is that Mike Gillis got GREEDY! He loved having two elite goaltenders, and even though Schneider should've probably been moved after his rookie season in the NHL, he just instead hung on to them. The gamble worked until Luongo got pulled in the playoffs, the team went forward with Schneider, and the rest is history. We're now left trading a guy when his value has never been lower. That's why it was a mistake. Trading is a buy low/sell high game. It would've been far smarter to trade Schneider when his value was very high, and thus gotten back a piece of very high value himself. As I've said before, the fundamental equation is this: Vancouver Canucks with Luongo plus consideration received for Schneider are better than Vancouver Canucks with Schneider plus consideration received for Luongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surtur Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I guess the only solution is trade Lu for a Backup and trade Cory for a starter. Problem Solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Looking at it from a buy low/sell high perspective, IMO the time to trade Luongo would have been trade deadline 2011. Prior to that season Schneider still would have been a gamble and wouldn't have garnered a great return. Sure we would have received something useful, but I sincerely doubt it would have been greater than what we'll wind up getting for Lu this year. So, trade deadline 2011 - Canucks are well on their way to the best regular season in franchise history, and we trade our starting goaltender? That makes no sense. And if we do that, we have our new starting goaltender cramping up two-thirds of the way through the opening game of the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 King of es should have his own pinned thread.. Whenever you feel like arguing with him you just go to the KOE thread and say what's on your mind about the Canucks. The king then finds potential reasons your wrong and you can argue till the lockout ends if you want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Haha - it was always easy to get King. And your equation remains as dumb as it was before. The ironing is that you are arguing that Gilis should have moved Schneider before his value got so high. And you're whining about not maximizing value. Which apparently is a contradiction that you will never be able to 'get.' You don't get the value of keeping Schneider as his value continued to increase. Essentially, you keep arguing that the Canucks should have sold low, as you highlight, before his value got so high. That wasn't a gamble. You claim to understand the trading game, but are arguing to trade an asset when the value was still on the rise, and would continue to rise for quite some time, and is actually still rising.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Looking at it from a buy low/sell high perspective, IMO the time to trade Luongo would have been trade deadline 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 But that would've been totally irrational. Veteran team, Cup-ready, trading their starting goaltender and putting in a rookie. Makes no sense. Kinda like what's happening now, except on a more macro-level (Schneider's not a rookie, per se, though he will be a rookie starter if/when this season commences). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 He should've been moved before he supplanted the guy that our GM signed to a 12-year contract in 2009. Do you think Luongo signed that deal under the assumption that this circus would be taking place only 25% into the contract? Mike Gillis always talking about being a "destination franchise" - how are the optics of all of this? And I'm not arguing that the Canucks should've sold low. You really don't think that a package of significant value could've been had in moving Schneider on Draft Day 2011, for example? He had just come off a Jennings season and a Cup appearance - we could've got a very helpful piece coming our way. A legitimate bidding war could've been created with teams like Columbus, Tampa, Long Island, Toronto, etc., etc. But instead, Gillis balked, hoping that his value will increase EVEN MORE if he's held (greed). Well, it did, but, unfortunately, his value increase came at the expense of Luongo's, and now we're selling Luongo (who's still very good) into a pitiful goaltender's market, where we will almost definitely not get fair value. RE: your trading comment, it's good to ride the trend, yes, unless you get caught with your pants down when the tide goes out. That's what happened to Mike Gillis here. Ride Schneider, ride Schneider, ride Schneider...whoops, he's now beat up the other guy that we now have to trade, and that nobody really wants, and that he controls where he ends up. Answer me this: do you think this scenario played out as Mike Gillis had envisioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 But that would've been totally irrational. Veteran team, Cup-ready, trading their starting goaltender and putting in a rookie. Makes no sense. Kinda like what's happening now, except on a more macro-level (Schneider's not a rookie, per se, though he will be a rookie starter if/when this season commences). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.