RUPERTKBD Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He also scores more goals, gets more points, hits more frequently and harder, runs the PP better, has a far better shot, is far more nasty to play against, bigger, younger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 To Toronto: Luongo To Van: Phaneuf Hamhuis/Phaneuf+healthy canucks = cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 To Toronto: Luongo To Van: Phaneuf Hamhuis/Phaneuf+healthy canucks = cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I was pumping that trade months ago. I think Hammer would cover for Phaneuf nicely, and allow him to shine (Bieksa is sort of the poor-man's Phaneuf, and they work great). However, with the cap going down, I don't know how we could fit him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Offense doesn't mean anything if you can't play defense. Hamhuis is far more superior in the defensive zone than Phaneuf and Hammer can put up just as many points as Phaneuf can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 To Toronto: Luongo To Van: Phaneuf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 To Toronto: Luongo To Van: Phaneuf Hamhuis/Phaneuf+healthy canucks = cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 2013-2014 Hamhuis-Phaneuf Garisson-Bieksa Veteran-Tanev Ballard traded for a prospect/pick, Edler's rights traded. Might want to sign a veteran d-man for the 3rd pairing rather than having a guy like Corrado or Connauton shoulder the load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawberries Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Hamhuis has a higher overall in nhl 13 omgz lololololol end thread/ but seriously dion sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawberries Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Can't really argue that this defense isn't better than the current Canucks defense. Bieksa at his rightful place: GARRISON - BIEKSA could be deadly, Phaneuf covered by Hamhuis, he could do some very serious damage. I love the idea. Keep Luongo and get a high octane offensive player for Edler and suddenly, we have a team again. CBJ Edler 1st VAN Umberger (playoff beast) Murray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Offense means everything when a team can't score in the playoffs. Whether one likes him or not, a Canucks team with Phaneuf on it is immensely better than a team without him on it. I would tend to think that the opposition would not intimidate and take as many liberties against the Canucks as they do if Phaneuf would be on the team. He's a big body who will make you pay for your sins against his brothers. Toronto needs Schneider bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Toronto would quickly decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 and Luongo has to improve his game over last year or you have a great team with (based on last year) an average goalie !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Offense means everything when a team can't score in the playoffs. Whether one likes him or not, a Canucks team with Phaneuf on it is immensely better than a team without him on it. I would tend to think that the opposition would not intimidate and take as many liberties against the Canucks as they do if Phaneuf would be on the team. He's a big body who will make you pay for your sins against his brothers. Toronto needs Schneider bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Toronto will not trade their captain but IF that is on the table, Lu for dion straight up, I would get Burke to hold and see if we can get a blue chip young forward prospect for edler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 No he's not. Luongo is not an "average" goalie. He's proven over YEARS. Schneider is a backup rookie at this point. Found this for you, which perfecrly explains my concerns and which you fail to recognize as a potential outcome: Vancouver Sun Sports Blogs One lingering concern about keeping Cory Schneider With the news that Roberto Luongo has reportedly requested a trade — he's even willing to waive his no-trade clause for it! – it seems that we have already been given an answer as to which of the Canucks' two very good goaltenders will be traded this offseason. But I have to admit that I do have one big concern about keeping Cory Schneider rather than Luongo. The issue is fairly simple: there have been a lot of young goaltenders in the NHL that have experienced tremendous success in their first full season in the league, then faltered badly afterwards. (Graig Abel, Getty Images) There are a couple big names recently that fall into that category: Andrew Raycroft won the Calder trophy as rookie of the year in 2004 for the Boston Bruins after posting a .926 save percentage and a 2.05 goals against average. After that stellar first season, he didn't post a save percentage about .900 until he was a backup in Vancouver in 2009-10. He is currently playing for the Texas Stars of the AHL, though he did play 10 games in Dallas this season. Steve Mason also won the Calder in his rookie year and was nominated for the Vezina, as he helped lead the Columbus Blue Jackets to their first ever playoff berth with a .916 SV% and a 2.29 GAA. His next two seasons, his save percentage dropped to .901 and the Blue Jackets finished last in the NHL this season. Vesa Toskala posted a stellar .930 SV% and a 2.06 GAA as a backup in San Jose in the 2003-04 season. A couple years later, he was the punch line to every joke about the Maple Leafs. In the 90s, there was Jim Carey. In Carey's sophomore season, his first as a number one goaltender, he won the Vezina trophy as the NHL's best goaltender with a .906 SV% and a 2.26 GAA. A little over a year later, he was in the AHL. A couple years after that and he had retired from professional hockey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I'd say it most emphatically isn't when he has a $6.5M cap hit in a hockey world where the cap could be $60M next season. Not to mention we'd have to trade away assets to get him when they would be better spent getting younger and cheaper in other areas considering we already have 4 D-men making over $4M and another about to get a raise to that level at least. You can't just look at it like, "Hey, he's a pretty good player, he'd probably help us." You have to consider what you lose to get him, and what his cap hit does to the rest of your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Let me rephrase it: a Canucks team with Phaneuf (6.500) on it is immensely better than a team with Ballard (4.200) and Raymond (2.275) (6.475) on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 You can't just look at it like, "Hey, he's a pretty good player, he'd probably help us." You have to consider what you lose to get him, and what his cap hit does to the rest of your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Ok then, I'll rephrase: we can't trade Ballard and Raymond to get Phaneuf, so why would that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.