Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 When condescending upon all, it results in isolation for the individual and unified defense from the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TmanVan Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Yes Kadri is the second coming of Sakic I was wrong I will bow to you and your tribe of donkey's views.. done? Idiot as for the banning? Same thing happened I made a point about Schnieds being better, got flamed, called a troll like you're saying now because I stated an opinion based on actual knowledge of hockey talent, vs I love my Lou Lou that's on here..got flamed by people etc....and know what buddy, mr I'll call you a troll because I can't handle the fact that mr.BuretoMogilny is right...you know what, guess what? I WAS RIGHT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Once again you go straight back to saying how crappy Kadri is , when all I asked was what is a better option? Seems like you don't have an answer but can't admit it. You're so smart, everybody else is wrong, you know best, we're idiots.......make you feel better? Can you actually contribute something useful now??? What option is better than Kadri if we're dealing with the leafs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TmanVan Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Better option don't trade to Toronto if all you're getting is Bozak and Kadri Keep Lou until another team's starter goes down or Toronto gets a bit more desperate and gives up more (ie when they start seeing their goalies fail again). Pretty simple. If you're giving up an All Star goalie no matter what the contract issues you should be getting back a player who is at least a projected Stud. You don't get a "maybe, a reclamation project, a potential 2nd liner if the stars align and his head gets in it"...sounds to me like an unloading of baggage. Bozak sure, but he's a 3C on this team and a good addition to a package. You have to see at least a Reilly, Gardiner (highly doubtful), or Grabo (possible) coming back and depending on which potentially a pick in there as well. Otherwise you wait...you don't give away strong assets for junk if you want to remain a contender long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TmanVan Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Better option don't trade to Toronto if all you're getting is Bozak and Kadri Keep Lou until another team's starter goes down or Toronto gets a bit more desperate and gives up more (ie when they start seeing their goalies fail again). Pretty simple. If you're giving up an All Star goalie no matter what the contract issues you should be getting back a player who is at least a projected Stud. You don't get a "maybe, a reclamation project, a potential 2nd liner if the stars align and his head gets in it"...sounds to me like an unloading of baggage. Bozak sure, but he's a 3C on this team and a good addition to a package. You have to see at least a Reilly, Gardiner (highly doubtful), or Grabo (possible) coming back and depending on which potentially a pick in there as well. Otherwise you wait...you don't give away strong assets for junk if you want to remain a contender long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Better option don't trade to Toronto if all you're getting is Bozak and Kadri Keep Lou until another team's starter goes down or Toronto gets a bit more desperate and gives up more (ie when they start seeing their goalies fail again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Better option don't trade to Toronto if all you're getting is Bozak and Kadri Keep Lou until another team's starter goes down or Toronto gets a bit more desperate and gives up more (ie when they start seeing their goalies fail again). Pretty simple. If you're giving up an All Star goalie no matter what the contract issues you should be getting back a player who is at least a projected Stud. You don't get a "maybe, a reclamation project, a potential 2nd liner if the stars align and his head gets in it"...sounds to me like an unloading of baggage. Bozak sure, but he's a 3C on this team and a good addition to a package. You have to see at least a Reilly, Gardiner (highly doubtful), or Grabo (possible) coming back and depending on which potentially a pick in there as well. Otherwise you wait...you don't give away strong assets for junk if you want to remain a contender long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 The only problem with that is its kind of a "perfect world" situation, the longer we wait the more problems that could potentially arise. As you mentioned Reilly and Gardiner are highly unlikely, so I don't see how much more we would get in holding out. Remember also that this could really piss off Luongo if we sit him on the bench as a back for half a season. Just out of curiosity, why would you want grabovski and his cap hit, and not Kadri, who plays a similar game and appears to have a higher ceiling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Once again, you're showing a serious inability to think about these things. If Ryan Miller goes down to an injury, do you really think that Buffalo will have interest in bringing in a guy with 9 years left on his deal? Wake up - they'd then just be in the exact same position that we're in when Miller comes back. Luongo's contract is nearly an impossible one to move. Look at how stubborn the NHL is being in the CBA negotiations with contracting rights; "the hill we'll die on" is 5 year terms. That should send a pretty strong signal that the owners are not keen on the idea of lifetime contracts, which does not bode well for Luongo's marketability. You still have yet to explain how holding onto Luongo is in our interests. He will be worth even less in 2013. If the Canucks want to hang on to him because it's a shortened season, fine, but just be aware that the tradeoff for that is that you still have to move a goalie, probably Roberto, and it'll be even more difficult to move him in 2013 than it was in the summer. And the return will be less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Firstly, I don't have a serious inability to think about things, in fact I am thinking alot deeper than most who simply say, make the trade for Kadri, the kid has points in the AHL and there's nothing better, no better offers. That's pretty much the depth of your argument sir. And to clarify, you should read my posts, there is not one instance where I suggested Lou would go to Buffalo if Ryan Miller went down. Clearly, if you thought as deep as you think you do, you would realize I am talking about the "usual suspects" here, ie Toronto, FLA and perhaps one or two others that have shown interest ie Tampa etc. And who's to say if Washington's goalies don't have great starts they won't start looking either? Young unproven goalies throughout the league sir, some could succeed, some could flop, all of a sudden a market appears right???? Ok so on to the response and to counter...so what if one of FLA's goalies goes down or Markstrom doesn't give the team what they saw last year, or Tampa who's betting on a back up to show he can start, etc etc...Alot of things can change. More importantly, you don't sell when the market is weak if you're running a business and have a strong asset. You either hold the asset till the market improves or you only sell now if you have a SOLID offer, not take the best one available just because its available, but still weak. That's called being raped, schooled, owned, taken, whatever your choose to use. End of the day, Toronto needs Lou more than it hurts us to keep him for a season. That is our bargaining spot, and its easy to forget it and listen to Burke and allow him to send us his junk for a steal. Toronto makes the playoffs with Lou, without, ya maybe in a shortened season if they get off to a good start sure. But come playoff time they're done. Followed by a miss the next year bc Burke did nothing to solve his goaltending issues and who looks bad? Mr. Burke. And we all know what his ego is like...he doesn;t like looking bad, and nor will the new owners accept another non playoff year. Only think helping Burke right now is a shortened season, which may or may not work in his favour. Also, don't forget, most of the guys on the leafs have never even seen the playoffs. Let alone their goalies. They have a real leadership void on that team and this is likely another reason why Burke wants Lou. If arguably the most important player on the team has the most playoff experience, has been to the Stanley Cup, won a gold medal, its probably helpful in the room when you finally get there, on how to prepare, deal with the pressure, let the bad games go etc...There is huge value there that offsets his age/contract. And its not like he's Rolouson and 41 yrs old. He's 33. Burke isn't trying to get Lou just because he is a top ten goalie, he also wants him for his leadership and experience, something that team is severely lacking. That's value...so when I hear we get Toronto castoffs/spares and a 3rd liner for that I have to question what ganga people are smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Firstly, I don't have a serious inability to think about things, in fact I am thinking alot deeper than most who simply say, make the trade for Kadri, the kid has points in the AHL and there's nothing better, no better offers. That's pretty much the depth of your argument sir. And to clarify, you should read my posts, there is not one instance where I suggested Lou would go to Buffalo if Ryan Miller went down. Clearly, if you thought as deep as you think you do, you would realize I am talking about the "usual suspects" here, ie Toronto, FLA and perhaps one or two others that have shown interest ie Tampa etc. And who's to say if Washington's goalies don't have great starts they won't start looking either? Young unproven goalies throughout the league sir, some could succeed, some could flop, all of a sudden a market appears right???? Ok so on to the response and to counter...so what if one of FLA's goalies goes down or Markstrom doesn't give the team what they saw last year, or Tampa who's betting on a back up to show he can start, etc etc...Alot of things can change. More importantly, you don't sell when the market is weak if you're running a business and have a strong asset. You either hold the asset till the market improves or you only sell now if you have a SOLID offer, not take the best one available just because its available, but still weak. That's called being raped, schooled, owned, taken, whatever your choose to use. End of the day, Toronto needs Lou more than it hurts us to keep him for a season. That is our bargaining spot, and its easy to forget it and listen to Burke and allow him to send us his junk for a steal. Toronto makes the playoffs with Lou, without, ya maybe in a shortened season if they get off to a good start sure. But come playoff time they're done. Followed by a miss the next year bc Burke did nothing to solve his goaltending issues and who looks bad? Mr. Burke. And we all know what his ego is like...he doesn;t like looking bad, and nor will the new owners accept another non playoff year. Only think helping Burke right now is a shortened season, which may or may not work in his favour. Also, don't forget, most of the guys on the leafs have never even seen the playoffs. Let alone their goalies. They have a real leadership void on that team and this is likely another reason why Burke wants Lou. If arguably the most important player on the team has the most playoff experience, has been to the Stanley Cup, won a gold medal, its probably helpful in the room when you finally get there, on how to prepare, deal with the pressure, let the bad games go etc...There is huge value there that offsets his age/contract. And its not like he's Rolouson and 41 yrs old. He's 33. Burke isn't trying to get Lou just because he is a top ten goalie, he also wants him for his leadership and experience, something that team is severely lacking. That's value...so when I hear we get Toronto castoffs/spares and a 3rd liner for that I have to question what ganga people are smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Better option don't trade to Toronto if all you're getting is Bozak and Kadri Keep Lou until another team's starter goes down or Toronto gets a bit more desperate and gives up more (ie when they start seeing their goalies fail again). Pretty simple. If you're giving up an All Star goalie no matter what the contract issues you should be getting back a player who is at least a projected Stud. You don't get a "maybe, a reclamation project, a potential 2nd liner if the stars align and his head gets in it"...sounds to me like an unloading of baggage. Bozak sure, but he's a 3C on this team and a good addition to a package. You have to see at least a Reilly, Gardiner (highly doubtful), or Grabo (possible) coming back and depending on which potentially a pick in there as well. Otherwise you wait...you don't give away strong assets for junk if you want to remain a contender long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I agree with most of your posts. Burke has more to lose than MG. So what are a couple different trades you'd think were fair with the Leafs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Firstly, I don't have a serious inability to think about things, in fact I am thinking alot deeper than most who simply say, make the trade for Kadri, the kid has points in the AHL and there's nothing better, no better offers. That's pretty much the depth of your argument sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 "The kid has points in the AHL". That is not at all the depth of my argument. He's a young player, who was drafted very high, and who has high potential. You talk about how great a talent evaluator a guy like Brian Burke is; if that's the case, explain the Tim Connolly signing. I won't even bother asking for an explanation of the Komisarek's, the Beauchemin's, the JM Liles', etc. Kadri's not getting a chance with the Leafs because they've shown a desire to just "patch it up" and hope that Kessel becomes their Crosby, carrying them to greatness. Maybe, but probably not. Tampa gave up 2 2nds and a 3rd for Lindback; not a lot of teams that I know are willing to give up that sort of package for a backup. He'll be given a shot. And due to the fact that there are so few buyers for Luongo, the offers just aren't going to go up very much, if they even would at all - IMO, wishful thinking on the part of the Canuck fan. This is a guy with 9 years left on his deal, at big money, who's just lost his starting job on a team where he fits in best for a first-time starter. Gillis is under pressure to move him, everyone knows this, and there's just no urgency to acquire him. If there was, the trade would've been made already. OK, Jim Cramer, explain to me how "the asset" - 33 year-old goaltender with a 9-year contract that you're under pressure to move - is going to appreciate over the course of a season as our backup. You're saying that he'll be worth more in the summer of 2013, as a 1-year NHL backup with 8 years remaining at $5.3M per? Explain that one. To build on your market analogy, losses are OK, if they are kept small. This one will be a loss. Bozak & Kadri would be an excellent return. End of the day, you're still not thinking. What if Gillis' asking price is too high, Toronto backs off, gives Reimer a shot, Reimer excels, Leafs make the playoffs? What then, for Vancouver, in 2013? Hope and pray that some team that's desperate to acquire a 34 year-old backup goaltender for $5.3M per year until 2022 shows up as a white knight? Don't hold your breath. "Leadership" = record of folding when it counts, stripped of captaincy, former well-documented diva... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 1. Kadri has shown his potential = 3 yrs can't break one of the worst lineups in the NHL, and you named a bunch of players that have who you say suck...so...kinda argued against yourself there hey? Again, look at my points about transition from AHL to NHL, his issues, the oppty he's had given the lack of a center in Toronto and the crap team they have, yet he hasn't made it. Its not from anything other than a lack of the ability to make the jump. He is not going to be a top 2 line NHL'er. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Not arguing against myself. Toronto's management team have simply been too impatient. In Kadri's 51 NHL games, he has 19 points, which is encouraging. And his AHL numbers speak for themselves. Your "points" about transitioning from the AHL to the NHL have no basis to them, they're just your opinion. Either size or speed is not needed, as evidenced last year here by Cody Hodgson. Cap hit is big enough that he'll be expected to start over the duration of his contract. Not many teams that I know of will be keen to allocate $5.3M of their cap to a guy who would otherwise play 25 - 30% of games as a backup. Again, wishful thinking and denial. The cap hit is significant, far moreso than the actual dollars, of which a disproportionate share have been paid for already. What if they split games, and Schneider badly outplays him? Then what? Whoops! ...and if he badly outplays Schneider, another "Whoops!" occurs, because we're then trading the better-playing goaltender, which makes little sense on a veteran team. All the while, we have two pissed off goaltenders. How do you think Schneider will feel about having the franchise's best goaltender, of all time, watching over his shoulder as a backup, highly, highly motivated to perform, so as to GTFO of the city as fast as possible? Warm welcome to the guy being handed the football, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Kadri does not have the skill set the Hodgson had. Kadri was not the captain of a world junior team if we're going to go there. Big difference in committment, effort, etc. Hodgson, works out with Roberts, Kadri works out with a bag of potato chips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Actually, Kadri also works out with Roberts. You and Dallas Eakins clearly aren't aware of how "bulking up" works. There's no such thing as adding weight that is "pure" muscle. If you're deliberately adding weight, it's going to show up as both muscle and fat. Gary Roberts' magical diet of superfoods will not trump the laws of thermodynamics. If the goal is to gain weight, some of that weight will be fat. Period. In 95 years of the NHL, how often has that happened? There are exceptions to every rule. It's usually not a good bet to wager on the exception happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I have provided numerous points based in fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.