• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Templeton Peck

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0

3,003 posts in this topic

Tor: Luongo

Van: Kadri, Biggs, 2nd

Toronto gives us no roster players, and get to keep their 1st.

We get assets for the future, Biggs projects to be a 2nd/3rd liner, and everyone knows about/has their own opinions on Kadri, then what will likely be a mid/late 2nd in a deep draft.

Nothing great but we won't get full value so this seems reasonable for both sides.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your theory regarding Luongo's playoff stats? Those have been mediocre every year after 2007.

There is also no guarantee with Luongo. We didn't make the playoffs in 2008 and we weren't even that close. Why was he not able to put the Panthers on his back even just one time and bring them to the playoffs in all the years he was there? No guarantees.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Luongo have the stats and the Vezina nominations to back up his stature? Funny how it works that way...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily for you, more for the anti-Luongo girls around here... How does credentials on a Phaneuf/ Hamhuis debate renders a win for Hamhuis but in a Luongo/Schneider debate, Schneider the rookie wins.

That's all really.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha. You mean the play where Trevor Lewis gets his left skate inside Hamhius' when turning and Hamhius loses his edge and falls? Yeah, Hamhius should never be forgiven for that one....

If that's his greatest fail, that's says alot.

Yeah, I'd much rather live down Hamhius' trip.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hamhuis' trip" directly led to the Vancouver Canucks being eliminated as the 1st seed President's Trophy winners to the 8th seed. Slightly more of an impact than a meaningless regular season game with a non-conference "rival", as you've referenced, don't you think?

Hamhuis thought he was Bobby Orr, tried to get too cute with the puck, ended up losing it in his own end to Trevor Lewis (not exactly Pavel Datsyuk, BTW), and then tried to Kesler-dive to cover up his error and hopefully draw a penalty, which the refs did not buy. In other words, he choked. Pretty clearly and blatantly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. If you think Hamhuis dove on that play you have serious blinders on. Maybe look up the definition of "back-check" before posting again.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hamhuis' trip" directly led to the Vancouver Canucks being eliminated as the 1st seed President's Trophy winners to the 8th seed. Slightly more of an impact than a meaningless regular season game with a non-conference "rival", as you've referenced, don't you think?

Hamhuis thought he was Bobby Orr, tried to get too cute with the puck, ended up losing it in his own end to Trevor Lewis (not exactly Pavel Datsyuk, BTW), and then tried to Kesler-dive to cover up his error and hopefully draw a penalty, which the refs did not buy. In other words, he choked. Pretty clearly and blatantly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, look closely and you'll see that Hamhuis grabs the stick and is twisted around and flies away like a firefly. He tried to get a penalty and it cost the series. He got picked. Bad move. Blame Luongo. It's not Schneider's fault; he's in the net.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This canucks hockey 101 person has turned into a mini King of the ES want to be.... <_<

at least king of the es can make a point in some cases.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily for you, more for the anti-Luongo girls around here... How does credentials on a Phaneuf/ Hamhuis debate renders a win for Hamhuis but in a Luongo/Schneider debate, Schneider the rookie wins.

That's all really.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tor: Luongo

Van: Kadri, Biggs, 2nd

Toronto gives us no roster players, and get to keep their 1st.

We get assets for the future, Biggs projects to be a 2nd/3rd liner, and everyone knows about/has their own opinions on Kadri, then what will likely be a mid/late 2nd in a deep draft.

Nothing great but we won't get full value so this seems reasonable for both sides.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy with this return though IMO the Canucks have a bigger need for an offensive DMan and the Leafs have a few of them.

Every team is going to have to hit the ground running with only a 48 game schedule. This is Burke's last contractual year and MLSE hasn't renewed, most likely looking at performance before they renegotiate. Burke has to be feeling the pressure, Gardiner, Reilly or no playoffs, you pick Burke!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, look closely and you'll see that Hamhuis grabs the stick and is twisted around and flies away like a firefly. He tried to get a penalty and it cost the series. He got picked. Bad move. Blame Luongo. It's not Schneider's fault; he's in the net.

Our number one d-man right there.

Gonna be a long decade... Again...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt we get Rielly or Gardiner, especially Rielly, even if Burke feels the pressure and steps up his offer.

I don't think we need an offensive defensemen.

Our defensive slots are full with Tanev developing into a full time NHLer, and for the PP we have Edler and Garrison on the 1st then Hamhuis and Bieksa on the 2nd, then I think Ballard's skating ability and hockey sense could be valuable on the PP and Tanev is full capable of playing the PP aswell, so IMO all 6 guys potentially could be PP guys, I don't see a need for one myself.

I don't see many needs we can get in this deal other than young talent, so I think this is a perfect time to ass to our prospects with some good young talent so our future is a bit more bright.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canucks will most likely be losing a dman due to salary cap and aside from Tanev there isn't much defensive depth. Connaughton and Sauve are the closest to NHL ready and they aren't having that great of an AHL campaign. The Canucks have more forward depth than defensive and defense health has always been an issue come playoff time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, look closely and you'll see that Hamhuis grabs the stick and is twisted around and flies away like a firefly. He tried to get a penalty and it cost the series. He got picked. Bad move. Blame Luongo. It's not Schneider's fault; he's in the net.

Our number one d-man right there.

Gonna be a long decade... Again...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hamhuis' trip" directly led to the Vancouver Canucks being eliminated as the 1st seed President's Trophy winners to the 8th seed. Slightly more of an impact than a meaningless regular season game with a non-conference "rival", as you've referenced, don't you think?

Hamhuis thought he was Bobby Orr, tried to get too cute with the puck, ended up losing it in his own end to Trevor Lewis (not exactly Pavel Datsyuk, BTW), and then tried to Kesler-dive to cover up his error and hopefully draw a penalty, which the refs did not buy. In other words, he choked. Pretty clearly and blatantly.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.