Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Whats our BackupPlan?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
92 replies to this topic

#61 Googs

Googs

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:12 PM

We don't need a top six forward. Serioulsly.

We have Hansen, Higgins, Raymond, Kassian, Lappiere, Shroeder, Jensen etc. One of those guys should be able to fill that role this year.

Defenseman way more important.
No youtube vids in sigs.

#62 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:13 PM

Luongo also has a contract; he's welcome to play backup or compete for a top job like anyone else. Or sit out and we save his salary. Not getting paid would quickly adjust his attitude towards his trade list.


Great argument.

I'm sure that there'd be no awkwardness whatsoever if Luongo's brought back, and his role is to play every 8th game or so. Oh, him and Schneider are "friends", right? So for that reason Lou is fine to essentially throw in the towel on his career, and rot on the Canucks' bench for the next decade?

Use your freaking head. Luongo CANNOT be brought back. This is a bad situation, make no mistake about it, no matter how hard Mike Gillis is trying to downplay it. Anyone that can put their bias aside and think for themselves for a minute can easily see why Luongo being brought back helps NOTHING. His value will only get WORSE, as will the Canucks' locker room.

#63 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,845 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 02:32 PM

You use your own head.

I employ people, and I hand out the job description. For their $80 grand they have to do what the job description entails. At work we offer people input and make decisions on best for all, but we certainly don't let people get away with writing their own job desription because they whinge. And I decide who gets promoted. The bottom line is if I'm paying its my decision.

As for Lou, he signed a $50,000,000 contract. I'm stuck paying him, you bet I expect him to compete and outperform the rookies and up and comers. I have NO parience for a stance where, "Oh geez guys, my feelings are hurt cuz I'm not starter." In fact, that is what is hurting his trade value.

Yip, get yer arse back in the net and stop pucks son.Start playing for the team and the trade value returns. And you bet he can rot where ever you can put him if he signs that big a contract and then turns into a weenie.

Great argument.

I'm sure that there'd be no awkwardness whatsoever if Luongo's brought back, and his role is to play every 8th game or so. Oh, him and Schneider are "friends", right? So for that reason Lou is fine to essentially throw in the towel on his career, and rot on the Canucks' bench for the next decade?

Use your freaking head. Luongo CANNOT be brought back. This is a bad situation, make no mistake about it, no matter how hard Mike Gillis is trying to downplay it. Anyone that can put their bias aside and think for themselves for a minute can easily see why Luongo being brought back helps NOTHING. His value will only get WORSE, as will the Canucks' locker room.



#64 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:26 PM

As for Lou, he signed a $50,000,000 contract. I'm stuck paying him, you bet I expect him to compete and outperform the rookies and up and comers. I have NO parience for a stance where, "Oh geez guys, my feelings are hurt cuz I'm not starter." In fact, that is what is hurting his trade value.


I see your point, but, unfortunately, this is professional sports, and it doesn't work that way.

That'd make the Canucks, really, as an organization, look pathetic, and spiteful. Not gonna happen.

#65 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:54 PM

Great argument.

I'm sure that there'd be no awkwardness whatsoever if Luongo's brought back, and his role is to play every 8th game or so. Oh, him and Schneider are "friends", right? So for that reason Lou is fine to essentially throw in the towel on his career, and rot on the Canucks' bench for the next decade?

Use your freaking head. Luongo CANNOT be brought back. This is a bad situation, make no mistake about it, no matter how hard Mike Gillis is trying to downplay it. Anyone that can put their bias aside and think for themselves for a minute can easily see why Luongo being brought back helps NOTHING. His value will only get WORSE, as will the Canucks' locker room.


As the record is there to defer to and it is in alignment with this statement -WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

#66 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:00 PM

You use your own head.

I employ people, and I hand out the job description. For their $80 grand they have to do what the job description entails. At work we offer people input and make decisions on best for all, but we certainly don't let people get away with writing their own job desription because they whinge. And I decide who gets promoted. The bottom line is if I'm paying its my decision.

As for Lou, he signed a $50,000,000 contract. I'm stuck paying him, you bet I expect him to compete and outperform the rookies and up and comers. I have NO parience for a stance where, "Oh geez guys, my feelings are hurt cuz I'm not starter." In fact, that is what is hurting his trade value.

Yip, get yer arse back in the net and stop pucks son.Start playing for the team and the trade value returns. And you bet he can rot where ever you can put him if he signs that big a contract and then turns into a weenie.


High level athletes are not minimum wage earners.Luo makes half a million dollars a month and he has been thrown under the bus.

You will not decide Luo's fate and you certainly will not dictate to him - and neither will Gillis.

There are two sides to this story and Luongo is the one with the no trade and the rights to withhold his services.

Your little world is a lot different than the world in which mega millionaire NHL athletes rights have been negotiated prior to employment.

#67 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:32 PM

There is no such thing as a back up plan. There are only various options built into the master plan.

#68 5minutesinthebox

5minutesinthebox

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:08 PM

I still hold the belief that we could have beat LA with the roster we had. With Daniel out of the lineup to start the series, and the team not playing up to potential until Schnieder took over, we didnt even give ourselves a chance. And had we beaten them, I dont see any reason why that same team couldnt have gone deep.
We have certainly improved with the addition of Garrison. The guy eats 1st pairing minutes, plays in every situation, is extremely responsible with the puck, has a killer shot, and is physical.
Of course the addition of Doan and/or Arnott would seriously improve the team, but its hardly a reason to panic if we cant.

#69 5minutesinthebox

5minutesinthebox

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:14 PM

If we're still averaging 1 goal a game like we have in the last 2 playoff series' then it won't matter who our goalie is

Schneider had a 1.33GAA and still went 1-2 against the Kings, offense is what we've been lacking in the playoffs.


Look at the averages of both Quick and Thomas had during their runs to the SC. Quick was the reason the Kings won the Cup, just as Thomas was the reason we didnt.
We werent the only ones who had trouble scoring on them. Thomas has one of the best performances ever in the Finals, and Quick had one of the best runs ever in the playoffs.

#70 billabong

billabong

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,982 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:21 PM

How does showing our individual and team salaries support your argument that this is a 2nd round team at best? If that's your opinion then fair enough but mine is that this team is a top 5 team at worst. For one they've lost to the SC winners the past 2 seasons so I'm not really sure how that automatically makes them a 2nd round team.


you sir are stuck in the past

1) did you watch that la series!?!??! the kings steam rolled over the canucks, what has changed since then that change the outcome of the series if we met up again...garrison for salo!?!? nope not gonna happen (if we had daniel at teh start of the series then who knows but we didnt and these are the facts)

2) you are referring to this team that went to the stanley cup finals

sedin-sedin-burrows
higgins-kesler-samuelsson
torres-malhotra-hansen
raymond-lapierre-oreo

hamhuis-bieksa
edler-ehrhoff
ballard-salo

luongo
schneider

give or take some injuries but still THIS is a stanley cup contending team, not the one you see today
Posted Image

#71 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:21 PM

I still hold the belief that we could have beat LA with the roster we had. With Daniel out of the lineup to start the series, and the team not playing up to potential until Schnieder took over, we didnt even give ourselves a chance. And had we beaten them, I dont see any reason why that same team couldnt have gone deep.


Let's not forget that we were 1 goal away from being eliminated by Chicago, in the 1st round, in 2011, and they were without arguably their best defenceman for 4 games.

So, really, this kind of talk/excuses is just pointless. I'm sure that every team that we beat in 2011 also "firmly holds belief" that they could've beaten us, had X happened, had Y played better, etc. No point discussing it.

#72 5minutesinthebox

5minutesinthebox

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:26 PM

You have completely left out the one point that makes this argument completely void. Luongo controls his fate, not GMMG.
So far Luongo has listed just 2 teams that he would be willing to go to. So your thinking that the reason we dont have a top 6 coming back because Lu has no value is rubbish. If Luongo didnt have a problem being traded to anyone in the league it would have been a done deal already, and yes the return would be substantial.

You armchair GMs think you have it all figured out. The reason he hasnt been traded has 0 to do with his value. None.

Read the above post verrrry sloooooooowly, children. Let it sink in.

why are there people thinking Luongo is going to catch a top 6 forward by himself? His talent is only a small part of what is coming into play here folks. If Luongo could've fetched a top 6 forward that easily, don't you think the deal would've been made? Every other GM KNOWS that MG has no leverage, because the entire league KNOWS Vancouver is trying to deal Luongo. The fact that you people think Vancouver can fetch a 25-30 goal scorer with upside for an overpriced goalie is laughable. Nothing against Luongo, he's a great goalie. But in this situation his talent is a rather small part of the overall picture.



#73 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:32 PM

You have completely left out the one point that makes this argument completely void. Luongo controls his fate, not GMMG.
So far Luongo has listed just 2 teams that he would be willing to go to. So your thinking that the reason we dont have a top 6 coming back because Lu has no value is rubbish. If Luongo didnt have a problem being traded to anyone in the league it would have been a done deal already, and yes the return would be substantial.

You armchair GMs think you have it all figured out. The reason he hasnt been traded has 0 to do with his value. None.


:lol:

You don't say?

Let me be very clear: THAT HAS BEEN FACTORED INTO THIS VALUATION THAT WE'VE GIVEN HIM, YES.

Nobody's saying he's not a good goalie. He gets to choose his own fate, at the expense of the return that the Canucks will get. That's why I've been saying for a long time that Gillis has essentially screwed himself on this one.

#74 KING ALBERTS

KING ALBERTS

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 07:00 PM

if we don't get doan i think we will give up like the oilers
Posted ImagePosted Image

i fel off the banwagon and hit my hed on a rok


#75 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 07:13 PM

With Daniel returning from a concussion and Kes KNOWINGLY having been injured to the degree it effected his performance deeply all year why in the world did Gillis.org throw Luongo when the Canucks were going nowhere this year,anyways.

Gillis has painted himself in the corner from a series of blunders.Now we get to see the continuation of AS THE GILLIS SQUIRMS.

#76 That Commentator

That Commentator

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 07:59 PM

You use your own head.

I employ people, and I hand out the job description. For their $80 grand they have to do what the job description entails. At work we offer people input and make decisions on best for all, but we certainly don't let people get away with writing their own job desription because they whinge. And I decide who gets promoted. The bottom line is if I'm paying its my decision.

As for Lou, he signed a $50,000,000 contract. I'm stuck paying him, you bet I expect him to compete and outperform the rookies and up and comers. I have NO parience for a stance where, "Oh geez guys, my feelings are hurt cuz I'm not starter." In fact, that is what is hurting his trade value.

Yip, get yer arse back in the net and stop pucks son.Start playing for the team and the trade value returns. And you bet he can rot where ever you can put him if he signs that big a contract and then turns into a weenie.


Short response:

These 2 situations are not nearly as comparable as you are implying. I doubt Lu would want to be a starter for the Canucks again, even if Schneider is traded away.

Long response:

I think this is not a very good comparison. Luongo is on a 12-year long contract, whereas you're talking about what I can only assume is a permanent employee. Luongo's ties with the organization are severed when one of these happens:
a. 12 years are up.
b. His contract is bought out.
c. His contract is traded to another team.

Your permanent employee's ties with your organization are severed when one of these happens:
a. He decides, on his own, to leave the job.
b. He is fired for incompetence/some other reason.
c. He is laid off.

AFAIK, those are the only options other than extremes like the organization going under. The big difference between those sets of options is that for Luongo's contract, only b and c can happen on short notice, and they will have immediate/direct consequences on the organization beyond the position needing to be refilled. For your permanent employee, there aren't really any extra consequences unless it was a wrongful firing or you have to pay severance.

There are a lot of other big differences:
a. Pro hockey players are likely more exposed to the public and the media than your employees (depending on what they do of course).
b. Pro hockey players, if they're good, may be difficult to replace.
c. The amount of money involved is vastly different.
d. Many others depending on whatever the positions you're hiring for are.

Another thing to consider is that hockey players are still human beings, often quite emotional, despite being paid a lot of money. You can still pay Lu to do his job, but it's likely been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster. If he's already, in his mind, moved on, you can't really expect him to play to his potential. If we decided to trade Schneider now, this is what I think the whole scenario would look like when compared to a permanent employee earning a salary of $80,000:
1. Employee A is told that he is doing a very good job, and is strongly led to believe that he will have a very important role in the organization for years to come. (Luongo is given 12 year contract)
2. Employee A continues to do well, but there is a younger employee (Employee B ) that is starting to show promise. (Schneider improves)
3. Employees A and B are now believed to have approximately equal value to the company, although B may have surpassed A. (Schneider starts in favour of Lu vs the Kings in the playoffs last season)
4. It's implied to Employee A that he's now expendable. He will likely be given more and more menial tasks. Employee A accepts that it's time to move on, otherwise he will play a much lesser role than he would like to. (Schneider signs a new contract and Lu agrees that it's time to move on)
5. It's suddenly discovered that Employee B can be of great value to the company elsewhere, or he accepts a better job elsewhere. Employee A will be given a more meaningful role again. (Schneider is traded, Lu is the starter again)

Ok, I tried to make the scenarios as similar as possible, but there are obviously differences. Anyway, the point is that with this regular employee, he likely would have quit by #4. If not, by the end of it he would likely be so tired of being jerked around that he wouldn't be nearly as happy or productive. This is not to say that Lu has been jerked around, because I don't think he has, but I think that's how he would feel if they traded Schneider away now. Unfortunately for Lu, though, he couldn't simply quit his job like the regular employee could.

Edited by That Commentator, 09 August 2012 - 08:00 PM.


#77 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:48 PM

Luongo can fetch a top 6 player and a prospect. And I'd much rather have consistent playoff goaltending instead of a slightly higher return on a goalie trade. Luongo is Jeckyl and Hyde in the playoffs, one game he'll be good, one game he'll choke massively. He's shown that tendency year after year after year, it's time to give Schneider a shot. All high pressure games he's had he's done admirably, and if the LA series games is any indication, he'll be a far superior playoff goaltender to Luongo.

Yes he hasn't played tons of games etc etc I've heard all the tired arguments 1000x. Point is, we know at this point Luongo will be inconsistent in the playoffs, whereas with Schneider there's a good chance he'll be the solid goaltender who excels in high pressure games that we need to push us over the top. He matched Quick's level of play in the LA series and I see great things coming from him in the future. And yes we need more goal scoring but we also need more consistent post season goaltending. Our scoring will hopefully improve this year if we get luckier with injuries and add another top 6 with the Luongo trade or FA signing with Doan/Arnott.


We have no clue what Luongo can fetch with his contract. Schnieder, a 3 year? 4 million contract is pretty easy to trade for a next rising star. Luongo also has taken us to the cup finals. Schnieder has won 1 play off game. And to say he excels in high pressure is nonfactual at this point considering his cramping, and nervousness playing against Chi-town two years ago.

We have different opinions, I'll accept that but continue to believe mine.
Posted Image

#78 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:53 PM

you sir are stuck in the past

1) did you watch that la series!?!??! the kings steam rolled over the canucks, what has changed since then that change the outcome of the series if we met up again...garrison for salo!?!? nope not gonna happen (if we had daniel at teh start of the series then who knows but we didnt and these are the facts)

2) you are referring to this team that went to the stanley cup finals

sedin-sedin-burrows
higgins-kesler-samuelsson
torres-malhotra-hansen
raymond-lapierre-oreo

hamhuis-bieksa
edler-ehrhoff
ballard-salo

luongo
schneider

give or take some injuries but still THIS is a stanley cup contending team, not the one you see today


Only thing is that Manny wasn't there for the playoffs. So this team is wrong. Samuelsson was also injured.

So take those players out. Giving us

Sedin - Sedin - Burr
Raymond - Kesler - Higgins
Torres - Lappy - Hansen
Glass - Hodgson/Bolduc/Manny at end etc - Oreo.

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Ehrhoff
Ballard - Salo.

Now having Booth, Kassian and Garrision actually sounds better than this team. Althugh Ehrhoff cancels getting Garrison by a bit.

Edited by thehamburglar, 09 August 2012 - 08:54 PM.

Posted Image

#79 NightHawkSniper

NightHawkSniper

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:44 PM

If there is a lock-out it's a good thing we didn't re-sign Salo & Rome over Garrison.

5577747361_37d631069c_m.jpg
 


#80 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:57 PM

I think this is not a very good comparison. Luongo is on a 12-year long contract, whereas you're talking about what I can only assume is a permanent employee. Luongo's ties with the organization are severed when one of these happens:
a. 12 years are up.
b. His contract is bought out.
c. His contract is traded to another team.

d. He retires prior to his contract expiration date.


Luongo doesn't have a 35+ contract, so should he retire he would be off the books, no? So, should he feel the need to no longer play hockey, or he is injured, he could quit.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 09 August 2012 - 10:00 PM.

Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#81 That Commentator

That Commentator

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 11:54 PM

Luongo doesn't have a 35+ contract, so should he retire he would be off the books, no? So, should he feel the need to no longer play hockey, or he is injured, he could quit.

regards,
G.


Oh yeah, of course. I don't know how "retiring" didn't even cross my mind when I wrote that post, even though I'm sure it's likely that he will retire before his contract is up. Still, retiring just because he's uncomfortable means that he can't play for another team in the NHL, presumably. I'm not quite sure how it works if you retire before your contract expires and then want to play again, if you even can. I imagine you'd at least have to wait until the end of your contract before you can play again.

Edited by That Commentator, 09 August 2012 - 11:55 PM.


#82 Cr8zyCanuck

Cr8zyCanuck

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:42 AM

We don't need a top six forward. Serioulsly.

We have Hansen, Higgins, Raymond, Kassian, Lappiere, Shroeder, Jensen etc. One of those guys should be able to fill that role this year.

Defenseman way more important.


This complacency problem I see all over CDC is ridiculous. No we are not as good as were were last year, and not as good as the year before. This includes D, Forwards, and with Luongo gone arguably with nobody to backup Schneids if he is injured. This is plain as day to see with all the personnel leaving from our cup finals run. We need a few more pieces to make up for the losses. Plain as day. How do so many people type brainwashed drum banging comments.

No we aren't invincible. No we aren't going to easily win the cup this year with this roster. Stop acting like it and start a conversation about something realistic and constructive instead of pretending we are "ready" for the cup.

#83 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:10 AM

"Your mind" is not an accurate representation of the market.

Luongo can pick and choose where he wants to go. In light of this, there's a limited number of buyers to sell to. In light of THIS, the price drops. Top-6 forward is a nice dream, but it's not reality.

How do you know? Varlamov got a 1st and a 2nd, what makes you think Luongo can't get a top 6 forward? We know Luongo wants out and we want to get rid of him as soon as possible, but we'll wait for the right deal. If we miss out on Doan, we'll need a top 6 forward, and later in the season once teams start to realize their goaltending isn't that good, that's when the market is going to open up some more. I'm willing to bet Luongo doesn't enjoy being on a bench and a top 6 forward shouldn't be hard to get at all, especially if we throw Raymond in.

#84 Revanbc

Revanbc

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:13 AM

i heard that our back up plan is to win
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/ptparatroopa/billy.jpg[/img]

#85 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,465 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:43 AM

We have a 6.7 million dollar 'backup' plan.

#86 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 10 August 2012 - 03:44 AM

How do you know? Varlamov got a 1st and a 2nd, what makes you think Luongo can't get a top 6 forward?


Varlamov is/was young and cheap, a recent 1st rounder himself, and he doesn't have the constraints in being traded that Luongo does. Luongo ain't going to Columbus. He's not going to Edmonton. These affect his value, significantly.

And, BTW, what Varlamov got is just more evidence supporting my argument that we should've traded Schneider years ago. Sad.

If we miss out on Doan, we'll need a top 6 forward, and later in the season once teams start to realize their goaltending isn't that good, that's when the market is going to open up some more.


That's a lot of risky assumptions for an alleged Cup contender.

Even if Doan comes here, he doesn't WANT to be here, he wants to be in Phoenix. To me, that should be a major red-flag to all of the GMs currently drooling over him. I'll be honest, I don't think he'd be that great a fit here, anyway.

Benching Luongo makes no sense, either, because even if some other team's goalie does get injured, Roberto still has to sign off on the move! Can't you see the problem here?

#87 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 04:24 AM

I'm willing to bet Luongo doesn't enjoy being on a bench and a top 6 forward shouldn't be hard to get at all, especially if we throw Raymond in.


I am willing to bet that Luongo won't sit on the bench here,period.The only thing about to save Gillis' face is a lock-out.
Raymond,that prized asset that all NHL teams covet.That will cinch it.

#88 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 10 August 2012 - 04:50 AM

I hate to say it but trading Schneids would still allow us to have an elite goalie and attain a top 6 impact player, something a Lu trade probably wont do


Think about what you are saying, how would this conversation go between Gillis and Luongo and Cory.

Gillis - umm... Ya we ummm... tried to trade you as you requested, but knowone really wanted to give us anything back for you...sooo we traded Cory and got back a unbelievable package!! So you wanna stay now? Now that you are the man again?

Luongo - ok

Gillis - hey Cory how is your summer going?

Cory, not bad, can't wait to get back on the ice though!!

Gillis - not my ice, we traded you

Cory -WTF we just signed a contr...

Gillis - *click*
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#89 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 05:25 AM

Gillis-Hey Luo,we got four trade offers for Cory and only two for you so it is like we planned it all along-I traded Cory.

Luo-Not so fast,Mikey.I got a good thing going down here in the sun and all the pizzas I can eat for free so I am staying.

Gillis-What are you talking about? That L.A. game 5 was just a ruse,a ploy,set up for thrashing the bushes-I thought we had a deal?

Luo-Mike,I told you in May,June and July I am not coming back to Vancouver so you better hold on to Cory.I 'm done.

Gillis-What? I already traded him.No hard feelings.Life is great in Vancouver,you know that.We love you here.

Luo-Mike,I'm done.Please don't phone me at home again.You have my agent's #. Click.

#90 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 05:50 AM

Gillis-Schneider..what does it feel like to win the Cup? Schneids..feels frikkin great.




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.