[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0

[Smashian Kassian]

I personally don't think of contract too much. Most fans will not see in their lifetime, an NHL player's one year's salary.

What I find with Ballard is his confidence is at an all time low as he is being used sporadically and in some of the worst scenarios; sitting for most of the season and expecting to come in late in the playoffs is a good example.

He plays to avoid mistakes, not to create opportunity. It is not so much Ballard's fault as it is the organisation's. For his sake, I wish him traded where he could be used according to his talent rather than a "tool" for rainy days.

[oldnews]

You misunderstand.

It's not that I think the people replying to King constantly don't have anything intelligent to say (although the definition of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting a different result) but that the ability of the thread to carry on an intelligent discussion - let's call it reasonable discussion if that suits you more - gets lower and lower the more the thread gets dominated by those posts.

You've made some intelligent posts in this thread, some I agree with and some I don't, but all that gets lost amongst the babble of people arguing back and forth.

I have a feeling you'd agree if I said it this way: the pages that get taken up in this thread (now at version 3.0, this one past 40 pages and the others past 80-90) by people trying to convince a small group of posters that their view is possibly more correct or at least reasonable when that small group has shown very little ability to be swayed by someone else's opinion - even if that opinion is actually a fact or at least supported by facts - does not equal a useful discussion for the most part.

As I mentioned, I do use my ignore preferences, more frequently than 98% of the posters on this site I'd guess, but I also can't just ignore everyone who replies to a poster I'm ignoring. With how often people get trolled on this site, it'd very quickly become a lonely place despite having the most users of any NHL fan base.

You're suggesting I go make my own thread so I can get the intelligent discussion I hope for on this forum right after you mention "we can simply proceed in an inclusive way" - which is entirely contrary to the idea of having one thread to keep the discussion in. That would be akin to me suggesting you have a separate "discuss the ways that King is wrong on any number of subjects" thread so the rest of us can proceed in peace.

[Canucks_Hockey_101]

I agree completely, Like you I look past the contract easily.

I think AV should tell him to go out, and play his game, rush the puck and don't worry about making mistakes, mistakes are going to happen, they happen to everyone.

Look at Hamhuis, he is our most reliable defensemen, and is the defensemen you want out when it matters most, but even he made a mistake and LA scored, will he be given less of a role when the season begins? Oh course not, why should Ballard?

Ballard actually has some great tools, his skating ability is IMO easliy the best on our blueline, he is smarter offensively than he has been given credit for.

Personally if our PP Strugles I would give him a shot on the PP, even on the 1st unit with Eddie or Garrison. His skating ability could really help the break-out and entering there zone, something that was an issue last season, plus he is good at jumping into the rush, then in the zone he is smart enough and has enough skill that he wouldn't be a weakness.

That's something I would do personally, hopefully AV sees that the same way I do and he gets more of a shot.

[elvis15]

I personally don't think of contract too much. Most fans will not see in their lifetime, an NHL player's one year's salary.

What I find with Ballard is his confidence is at an all time low as he is being used sporadically and in some of the worst scenarios; sitting for most of the season and expecting to come in late in the playoffs is a good example.

He plays to avoid mistakes, not to create opportunity. It is not so much Ballard's fault as it is the organisation's. For his sake, I wish him traded where he could be used according to his talent rather than a "tool" for rainy days.

[Smashian Kassian]

We both know AV will further play with Ballard's head. That is the fear I have for Garrison once the honeymoon is over.

[elvis15]

No. There was no misunderstanding.

Your definition of insanity might also apply to attempting to appropriate these threads to content that is acceptable to you.

What you define as "intelligent" or qualify as "reasonable" doesn't really make any difference.

I missed the board rule that stipulated that only "useful discussions" shall be engaged in.

It's called a hockey discussion board.

People resist changing our opinions. King is not unique in this sense.

No one suggested that you not participate in this thread. An inclusive discussion would involve accepting that posters you deem unreasonable or unintelligent may decide to participate, and other people may decide to communicate with them.

If you require what you define as an exclusively "reasonable" or "intelligent" conversation, that's exclusively your problem, and you are probably on a fast track to insanity if you think this venue is going to deliver.

By no stretch of the imagination is King the only poster who makes 'unreasonable' or 'unintelligent' posts or resists changing their opinion - virtually all of us do that - when you suggest that he be ignored so that "the rest of us can proceed in peace", there really is no such thing as the "rest of us" that you pretend to speak for.

[The Bookie]

You're suggesting I go make my own thread so I can get the intelligent discussion I hope for on this forum right after you mention "we can simply proceed in an inclusive way" - which is entirely contrary to the idea of having one thread to keep the discussion in. That would be akin to me suggesting you have a separate "discuss the ways that King is wrong on any number of subjects" thread so the rest of us can proceed in peace.

[Smashian Kassian]

I don't know why people write off Garrison as the next Ballard. We haven't even seen him play in Blue and Green yet.

I understand people being kinda worried after the way the Ballard started off as a Canuck, but to write him off right now is unfair and a very terribly based opinion as far as im concerned.

[King of the ES]

In terms of Moneyball practice where specific statistical detail is analyzed, it is possible to "pad stats" by playing a player in specific situations but most of all, avoiding playing said player in other, less desired situations. For example, the Sedins' +/-'s, would be much worst if they were to kill penalties for it is more frequent to be scored on then to score on a Penalty Kill. They are also the first ones called upon for PPs, where the chances to score far outweigh PK and 5 on 5 play. As well, keeping the Sedins off the PK keeps them fresh for the PP as well as 5 on 5, thereby further increasing their chance to score. Essentially, this is Moneyball stat padding, which does not work in the playoffs.

[King of the ES]

I say that simply because he has $48.5 million coming to him over the next 5 years and his $7.7 cap hit makes no sense to a contender, it makes no sense to teams that aren't competitive, it is a very particular context that could potentially have interest - the only type of teams that could consider him are clubs like Calgary who spend recklessly to the cap (but haven't got the cap space for him), or a cap floor deal like Florida made acquiring Campbell (who at this point is a far, far better player than VL imo). Put those terms into contexts and where does he make sense? Most teams could use a top 6 or 9 center yes, but who can afford that contract?

[King of the ES]

Then if we have the exact same thing in Edler (That you think isn't similar for some dumb reason), who is better defensively, why would we need Phaneuf? Dion wouldn't play over Edler anyways, since Edler brings the exact same things Phaneuf does but a better defensive game.

Odds are if we had Dion on our team, after seeing the way AV treats Ballard, and judging by the fact that niether Edler, Hamhuis or Phaneuf can play the right side efficiently. On the depth chart Phaneuf would probably slot in on the 3rd pair

[King of the ES]

You misunderstand.

It's not that I think the people replying to King constantly don't have anything intelligent to say (although the definition of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting a different result) but that the ability of the thread to carry on an intelligent discussion - let's call it reasonable discussion if that suits you more - gets lower and lower the more the thread gets dominated by those posts.

You've made some intelligent posts in this thread, some I agree with and some I don't, but all that gets lost amongst the babble of people arguing back and forth.

I have a feeling you'd agree if I said it this way: the pages that get taken up in this thread (now at version 3.0, this one past 40 pages and the others past 80-90) by people trying to convince a small group of posters that their view is possibly more correct or at least reasonable when that small group has shown very little ability to be swayed by someone else's opinion - even if that opinion is actually a fact or at least supported by facts - does not equal a useful discussion for the most part.

As I mentioned, I do use my ignore preferences, more frequently than 98% of the posters on this site I'd guess, but I also can't just ignore everyone who replies to a poster I'm ignoring. With how often people get trolled on this site, it'd very quickly become a lonely place despite having the most users of any NHL fan base.

You're suggesting I go make my own thread so I can get the intelligent discussion I hope for on this forum right after you mention "we can simply proceed in an inclusive way" - which is entirely contrary to the idea of having one thread to keep the discussion in. That would be akin to me suggesting you have a separate "discuss the ways that King is wrong on any number of subjects" thread so the rest of us can proceed in peace.

[King of the ES]

In conclusion: Phaneuf is a Leaf and he sucks - no thanks.

Garrison is better.

Ballard is misunderstood.

[King of the ES]

When people assess Ballard all they look at is his cap hit, not what skills he brings.

[WiDeN]

+/- is not affected by special teams play. It's an even-strength metric.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "Moneyball stat padding". Have you read the book? What Oakland did was look for undervalued statistics - OBP, specifically. They frowned at the guys who looked the part - ie, Joe Colbourne, Nick Bjugstad - and focused instead on the heavily productive player. Kyle Wellwood is the perfect example of a "Moneyball" player - would've been a 1st round pick by Beane if he was managing an NHL team.

[Get real canuck fans]

Is early in the AHL season, but Scrivens and Markstrom are not doing well in the AHL. Seems like these are the 2 most likely trade destinations for Lu. Scrivens is 38th in the AHL in GAA and Toronto's other goalie has concussion issues, so Burke cannot feel good going into the season with Scrivens and Reimer. Forida did not seem likely because Markstrom is the up and coming guy and he is 45th in GAA in the AHL, and Floridas other 2 goalies are both basically 2 and 3 years older than Lu.

Has to help MGGM a wee bit.

[Riviera82]

Teams can afford that contract as long as there's another bad contract going the other way in the deal. Take us, for example. Ballard, Booth, and Malhotra; not good contracts. Edmonton; Hemsky, Horcoff. Calgary; Cammalleri, Stajan. Etc., etc. There are bad contracts abound. You really think Edmonton wouldn't be happy to absorb Lecavalier's contract if it meant getting rid of Horcoff's?

And that's interesting that you bring up Campbell. He was basically thought-of as being "untradeable" from Chicago, as being a 3rd defenceman with that type of contract, who's play had declined in each year since signing with the 'Hawks. Gets moved to Florida, becomes a #1 guy again, excels. Not crazy to think that the same thing could happen with Vinny.

"No signs of decline" from Luongo is debatable. If he wasn't showing signs of decline, Vancouver would've simply traded Schneider. Gillis holding onto Schneider for as long as he did appears to have been a subtle signal in his waning confidence in Luongo/the deal that he signed him to.

Also, though his gross numbers haven't declined all that much, on a relative basis, he finished 11th this past year in SVP amongst goalies who had played in 30 or more games. That's 2 out of the past 3 seasons where he hasn't finished in the top-10 of this stat.

[King of the ES]

Baseball is a much easier sport to rely on stats, because the play starts from the same spot every play. Also, Beane didn't have to consider physicality. Kyle Wellwood is softer than a fall peach, and although he can put up points, he can't play 3rd line center.

[Canucks_Hockey_101]

Teams can afford that contract as long as there's another bad contract going the other way in the deal. Take us, for example. Ballard, Booth, and Malhotra; not good contracts. Edmonton; Hemsky, Horcoff. Calgary; Cammalleri, Stajan. Etc., etc. There are bad contracts abound. You really think Edmonton wouldn't be happy to absorb Lecavalier's contract if it meant getting rid of Horcoff's?

And that's interesting that you bring up Campbell. He was basically thought-of as being "untradeable" from Chicago, as being a 3rd defenceman with that type of contract, who's play had declined in each year since signing with the 'Hawks. Gets moved to Florida, becomes a #1 guy again, excels. Not crazy to think that the same thing could happen with Vinny.

"No signs of decline" from Luongo is debatable. If he wasn't showing signs of decline, Vancouver would've simply traded Schneider. Gillis holding onto Schneider for as long as he did appears to have been a subtle signal in his waning confidence in Luongo/the deal that he signed him to.

Also, though his gross numbers haven't declined all that much, on a relative basis, he finished 11th this past year in SVP amongst goalies who had played in 30 or more games. That's 2 out of the past 3 seasons where he hasn't finished in the top-10 of this stat.

[Canucks_Hockey_101]

Teams can afford that contract as long as there's another bad contract going the other way in the deal. Take us, for example. Ballard, Booth, and Malhotra; not good contracts. Edmonton; Hemsky, Horcoff. Calgary; Cammalleri, Stajan. Etc., etc. There are bad contracts abound. You really think Edmonton wouldn't be happy to absorb Lecavalier's contract if it meant getting rid of Horcoff's?

And that's interesting that you bring up Campbell. He was basically thought-of as being "untradeable" from Chicago, as being a 3rd defenceman with that type of contract, who's play had declined in each year since signing with the 'Hawks. Gets moved to Florida, becomes a #1 guy again, excels. Not crazy to think that the same thing could happen with Vinny.

"No signs of decline" from Luongo is debatable. If he wasn't showing signs of decline, Vancouver would've simply traded Schneider. Gillis holding onto Schneider for as long as he did appears to have been a subtle signal in his waning confidence in Luongo/the deal that he signed him to.

Also, though his gross numbers haven't declined all that much, on a relative basis, he finished 11th this past year in SVP amongst goalies who had played in 30 or more games. That's 2 out of the past 3 seasons where he hasn't finished in the top-10 of this stat.