Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3002 replies to this topic

#301 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:51 PM

Dreger floated waivers last week.

It's the contract. Sheldon Souray and Wade Redden were put on waivers, too. Not that they're not good enough for the NHL, but because nobody wanted to touch those contracts.

It is an option, and it's actually probably Gillis' best leverage piece in this deal, since I can't imagine Luongo wanting spend the next decade in Columbus. This being a potential scenario is probably so severe that he'd accept a trade to a place like Toronto, even though he'd clearly rather be in FLA.


Waivers? Dregger is a mouthpiece for the Leafs. He's brother in law to Nonis. Dregger is losing credibility by the day. Don't pay attention to anything he says regarding Lu or the Leafs.
  • 0

#302 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:53 PM

After watching the Marlies vs Dogs and Wolves vs Abby I cannot say I see any sure things in Schroeder, Kadri or Colbourne. The most noticeable was Kadri. He does a pretty decent shot. Neither of those Marlies can be a center piece in any Lui trade. Throw-ins at best.

For those pumping Vinny his best before date is overdue. Refer to the ecoli scare for details.


Why dont you see anything in Schroeder?

Because he didn't score? I thought he was the most noticable out of the 3, he was working hard, and with his skating ability he was everywhere on the ice, great on the back check.

His Two-way game as really come along. And I thought Kadri was better than Colbourne too, neither did a ton but I thought Kadri was better offensively and it showed on the 1st goal with that assist.

I kinda agree though, about them being throw-ins rather than the main thing.
  • 0

zackass.png


#303 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:58 PM

Again, Luongo - BETTER THAN CAREER AVERAGE NUMBERS LAST YEAR.


OK, but, RELATIVE TO other NHL starters last year, he was 9th in SVP, 11th in GAA, which is a pretty significant drop. You can use the one year argument if you want, whatever. What you can't do, though, is say that Lecavalier's declining because his numbers are declining, but the Sedin's aren't declining because their numbers are also declining. Comparing it to their historical average? Really? That's your answer? Hilarious. It's not Lecavalier's fault that the Sedin's used to suck, which brings down their average significantly.
  • 0

#304 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:04 PM

Henrik Sedin and Stamkos are the only players in the NHL to finish in the top 10 scoring the last two seasons. Daniel's concussion prevented him from joining those two guys.
Stick that in your declining pipe and puff on it. I guess the majority of the NHL is declining haha.

You never fail...to come up with another fail.


That doesn't take away from the fact that it was a decline, no matter how you want to try and spin it. Did Sedin's numbers drop in 2011 relative to 2010? YES. Did Sedin's numbers drop in 2012 relative to 2011? YES. Pretty cut and dry. Do you refute these facts?
  • 0

#305 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:06 PM

This one should go in your top 10 of dumbest king quotes. For most people, that would be a clear #1, but for you, it just blends into the mix.

Regarding Bjugstad, like I said before, the Cancucks drafted Gaunce and Mallet - I wouldn't be surprised if they are no longer so interested in Bjugstad (and only you would compare him to Lindros on someone else's behalf.) Short term thinking and short term memory loss king. And on a similar note, it's funny how you speak for Provost / try to rope them into your claim that a Lecavalier trade would win a cup for Vancouver, "which this would do".


BTW, that was an obvious typo, but nice dramatic statement on your part. Of course I'm not guaranteeing a Cup if Lecavalier were to be acquired. But it would help. Certainly a lot more than Nick Bjugstad would.
  • 0

#306 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:14 PM

What would be the point? Is he an upgrade on Schroeder? Doubtful, when you look at their all around game. If you watched the Marlies game, you likely also watched the Wolves game and got to see Schroeder's game, which is also creative - he moves the puck nicely, and does his job around Lack as well - and you would have seen Mallet's game as well, which was only one game, but very impressive imo, and not simply because of his highlights. His puck pursuit and aggressiveness all over the ice was very noticeable - I don't expect Mallet to maintain his Q production in the A, but the young guy hits very hard (highlight reel hit last night), is tough (a Heat made the mistake of dropping the gloves with him), has obvious hockey sense at both ends of the ice and offensive upside - at 20 years old (and after only 5 games) already looks comfortable at the A level - and he fits the order for a third line center much more suitably than Kadri. Kadri is not going to take Kesler's job or find any top 6 time in Vancouver. Add Gaunce to the mix and what really is the point of Kadri? If he can't crack the Leafs lineup (and it's not simply that they 'mistreat' him - he isn't a legitimate NHL top 6 or even 9 yet, and he doesn't suit a depth role), he's not going to cut it amid Hank, Kesler, Lapierre, Malhotra, Schroeder, Gaunce, Mallet.


I agree with everything on Mallet, and Schroeder did look good.

But Kadri has been mistreated by the Leafs, and i'll prove it too you.


Kadri last season, had 7 points in 21 games and was a +2, that works out too about 25-30 points maybe more cause they were playing well you never know, and he was a +, then you look at there roster:

Matthew Lombardi had 18 points in 62 games and was -19.

Tim Connolly had 36 point's in 70 games and was -14.


Okay so Kadri was just as good as these guys, if not better, now another thing, and this is important.


Kadri was called up December 21st last year and sent down on Feburary 1st or 2nd I believe, after the Pittsburgh game on the 1st.

In that time the Leafs were (with Kadri) 10-6-2, Not a bad record, especially for them. And then after they sent him down they went 3-9-1 for the rest of Feburary.

Not mention all the complaints, that Connolly was playing terrible and didn't fit, and that Kadri should have stayed. Then they call him out again about the body fat thing. He should have stayed with the big club last year, it was stupid to send him down, they were playing well and winning then they send him down and look what happened.

Brian Burke said in his year end presser "You go back the Feburary 6th at that point we were in 6th place in the East, and chasing the 5th team, we were actually looking at the schedule to see when we could catch the team above them, And that's when the wheels fell off"

- And I would just like to point out that they hit this brick wall that derailed there season 6 Days after Kadri was sent down.
  • 0

zackass.png


#307 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:16 PM

That doesn't take away from the fact that it was a decline, no matter how you want to try and spin it. Did Sedin's numbers drop in 2011 relative to 2010? YES. Did Sedin's numbers drop in 2012 relative to 2011? YES. Pretty cut and dry. Do you refute these facts?


You are almost too obtuse sometimes to bother to respond to.
You have attempted to maintain that the Sedins and Luongo's careers are in decline. Of course, as usual, your doomsdaying is premature.
One year variations occur with virtually every player in the NHL - that doesn't qualify a claim of decline.
Lecavalier (5 mere months older than the twins) has seen a six year trend - actual decline - where his numbers have dropped off by 55%.

108
92
67
70
54
49

Give your head a shake if you think there is a comparable trend.
  • 0

#308 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:27 PM

You are almost too obtuse sometimes to bother to respond to.
You have attempted to maintain that the Sedins and Luongo's careers are in decline. Of course, as usual, your doomsdaying is premature.One year variations occur with virtually every player in the NHL - that doesn't qualify a claim of decline.
Lecavalier (5 mere months older than the twins) has seen a six year trend - actual decline - where his numbers have dropped off by 55%.

108
92
67
70
54
49

Give your head a shake if you think there is a comparable trend.


:lol:

OK, so the fact that the Sedins' production has only declined for 2 consecutive years, rather than 5, means that I guess it's not a full-fledged "decline" quite yet...maybe a "decli"....

Thanks for clearing that up.

And BTW, the whole point of my initial response was to let you know that you can't SOLELY look at the numbers when considering a player's decline. Roberto Luongo arrived in Vancouver as a 27 year-old with the reputation as perhaps the best goalie in the league. He's now 33, has a shaky reputation, and is coming off of a so-so year on the President's Trophy team. If you think this is the same guy that arrived in 2006, you are dreaming. He's still very good, and I would've preferred us to keep him and trade Schneider before this whole debacle went down, as you well know, but to say that he hasn't declined at all since his arrival is just not accurate.
  • 0

#309 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:44 PM

I agree with everything on Mallet, and Schroeder did look good.

But Kadri has been mistreated by the Leafs, and i'll prove it too you.


Kadri last season, had 7 points in 21 games and was a +2, that works out too about 25-30 points maybe more cause they were playing well you never know, and he was a +, then you look at there roster:

Matthew Lombardi had 18 points in 62 games and was -19.

Tim Connolly had 36 point's in 70 games and was -14.


Okay so Kadri was just as good as these guys, if not better, now another thing, and this is important.


Kadri was called up December 21st last year and sent down on Feburary 1st or 2nd I believe, after the Pittsburgh game on the 1st.

In that time the Leafs were (with Kadri) 10-6-2, Not a bad record, especially for them. And then after they sent him down they went 3-9-1 for the rest of Feburary.

Not mention all the complaints, that Connolly was playing terrible and didn't fit, and that Kadri should have stayed. Then they call him out again about the body fat thing. He should have stayed with the big club last year, it was stupid to send him down, they were playing well and winning then they send him down and look what happened.

Brian Burke said in his year end presser "You go back the Feburary 6th at that point we were in 6th place in the East, and chasing the 5th team, we were actually looking at the schedule to see when we could catch the team above them, And that's when the wheels fell off"

- And I would just like to point out that they hit this brick wall that derailed there season 6 Days after Kadri was sent down.


To be honest - I wouldn't take Tim Connolly off waivers. Lombardi, likewise.
They might make even less sense than Kadri, but that doesn't mean Kadri makes sense. The Canucks do not need Kadri.
You may have a point that Kadri might belong on the Leafs roster - but he doesn't belong on the Canucks roster.
Part of the Leafs problem is that the have nearly 5 million in cap space tied up in Connolly and another 3.5 in Lombardi.
To put them in the press box... The Leafs may not be mistreating him as much as waiting until he commands the ice time - and attempting to get more of a work ethic out of him in the process before rewarding him with a roster spot.
Connolly and Lombardi are likely very difficult contracts to move, but you could probably bet the Leafs tried. In any event they'll both be UFA next year...
Anyway I'm not going to argue that Kadri's not as good as those guys. What I will point out is that where the Leafs have Connolly the Canucks have Kesler. Where they have Lombardi at 3.5, the Canucks have Lapierre at 1 million. And where Kadri might fit in (imo a misfit), the Canucks already have Schroeder (and Mallet and Gaunce on the way).
You make a good point for him staying in Toronto.
  • 0

#310 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

:lol:

OK, so the fact that the Sedins' production has only declined for 2 consecutive years, rather than 5, means that I guess it's not a full-fledged "decline" quite yet...maybe a "decli"....

Thanks for clearing that up.

And BTW, the whole point of my initial response was to let you know that you can't SOLELY look at the numbers when considering a player's decline. Roberto Luongo arrived in Vancouver as a 27 year-old with the reputation as perhaps the best goalie in the league. He's now 33, has a shaky reputation, and is coming off of a so-so year on the President's Trophy team. If you think this is the same guy that arrived in 2006, you are dreaming. He's still very good, and I would've preferred us to keep him and trade Schneider before this whole debacle went down, as you well know, but to say that he hasn't declined at all since his arrival is just not accurate.


So you've been arguing all along that the Canucks should have traded Schneider and kept the "declining" Luongo.

Your logic gets more and more convincing with each post.

Corey Perry
2010/11 98 points
2011/12 60 points

St Louis 99, 74

Ovechin 85, 65

Zetteberg 80, 69

Brad Richards 77, 66

Sound the alarms!!!! The stars of the NHL are in decline!!!

The opposite could be said about Spezza, Kovalchuk, Malkin... stars on the rise!!!

Your short term one year signs of decline are simplistic king.

Two of the last three Hart trophies = decline haha.

Lecavalier - now there is your sign of steady decline - 55% over 6 years.

Keep on derping.
  • 0

#311 sting

sting

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 859 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 03:02 PM

Waivers? Dregger is a mouthpiece for the Leafs. He's brother in law to Nonis. Dregger is losing credibility by the day. Don't pay attention to anything he says regarding Lu or the Leafs.


Waivers???? bahahaa!!!!

Dreger is being a fool.

When five teams are bidding for someones services they don't need to go on waivers. Canucks also have the cash to carry Luongo to the trade deadline to add bidders if need be.

TO just makes sense as Burke knows the value of game changing players. Has been in obvious discussions and usually gets his man. He also is under intense pressure to field a playoff team.

1st rd 2013
Tyler Bozak
Matt Lombardi (cap reasons)
Cody Franson
  • 0

#312 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 21 October 2012 - 03:25 PM

Regarding Bjugstad, like I said before, the Cancucks drafted Gaunce and Mallet - I wouldn't be surprised if they are no longer so interested in Bjugstad (and only you would compare him to Lindros on someone else's behalf.) Short term thinking and short term memory loss king. And on a similar note, it's funny how you speak for Provost / try to rope them into your claim that a Lecavalier trade would win a cup for Vancouver, "which this would do".


Yep... I am no part of his claim. I do think Lecavalier would be a definite upgrade on Raymond on the 2nd line... but the point of my posts was that the possible changes to the CBA could completely open up the market for Luongo and give us lots of possibilities. Tampa being just one example of a deal that didn't work under the old rules, and might under the new ones.

Bjugstad is also a possibility, amongst several others... I don't think that having Gaunce or Mallet change the desirability of having him at all. Neither of them is near the prospect he is, and I think his worst case potential is an Arnott type player... his best case is a bigger, meaner version of Getzlaf. Neither one is anything to sneeze at. If they all reached close to their potential a Jensen-Bjugstad-Kassian line could anchor our roster for a decade after the Sedins are gone.

I think most can agree on the needs of the team, and I am sure MG is going to be able to fill them with the best deal available:

1x top 6 forward
The top 6 forward is hardest to fill, especially since we ideally need a big/tough/playmaking guy to complement our existing core.

1x bottom 6 forward
For a bottom 6 guy, we could even get a cheap option like Arnott to fill in for a year, or see if one of our guys like Pinizotto/Volpatti can make the jump. I am not as convinced that we need a 3rd line centre as some people... if Malhotra is recovered, then he and Lapierre are a pretty decent duo. Ebbett is fine for injury backup in an emergency situation. More centres are always good though, MG seems to love guys who can play all three positions.

1x bruising stay at home 3rd pairing defenceman
#6/7 defencemen aren't too hard to find... an Alberts type who is also good at punching people in the face and making sure no one runs Tanev or our smaller forwards would be handy.

1x veteran backup goalie (assuming Luongo is traded)
Veteran backups are a dime a dozen at minimum wage.... whoever we trade Luongo to will probably even want to unload one to us.

Edited by Provost, 21 October 2012 - 03:30 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#313 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 03:35 PM

To be honest - I wouldn't take Tim Connolly off waivers. Lombardi, likewise.
They might make even less sense than Kadri, but that doesn't mean Kadri makes sense. The Canucks do not need Kadri.
You may have a point that Kadri might belong on the Leafs roster - but he doesn't belong on the Canucks roster.
Part of the Leafs problem is that the have nearly 5 million in cap space tied up in Connolly and another 3.5 in Lombardi.
To put them in the press box... The Leafs may not be mistreating him as much as waiting until he commands the ice time - and attempting to get more of a work ethic out of him in the process before rewarding him with a roster spot.
Connolly and Lombardi are likely very difficult contracts to move, but you could probably bet the Leafs tried. In any event they'll both be UFA next year...
Anyway I'm not going to argue that Kadri's not as good as those guys. What I will point out is that where the Leafs have Connolly the Canucks have Kesler. Where they have Lombardi at 3.5, the Canucks have Lapierre at 1 million. And where Kadri might fit in (imo a misfit), the Canucks already have Schroeder (and Mallet and Gaunce on the way).
You make a good point for him staying in Toronto.


I was just using that to prove that he has been mistreated. Obviously Connolly and Lombardi aren't the players they once were and the contracts attached are way too high to be useful on our team.

Kadri I think could, in that 3rd line role, Lappierre has been great, he has played well but then again we could use him on the 4th line and build that line into something that will actually help us in the playoffs, not just be the line that gets good minutes when we are winning by more than 2 or 3 goals.

Maybe Kadri wouldn't be good but I think there is enough offensive abililty there that if he was given a shot that he would break out here, he would make Hansen and Higgins/Raymond better and they would make him better defensively, then there is always the 2nd unit where he would be key.

He would play a similar role to where Hodgson did last year. But I do agree that Schroeder and Gaunce are both will be able to play soon, so maybe Kadri isn't the main piece we should be after but I think if we could get him as a throw in it might be something to look at.
  • 0

zackass.png


#314 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,150 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:04 PM

What is a Cup worth to you? If the mechanism to retain contract dollars and not have to count salary towards the cap is available in the next CBA, I can virtually guarantee that we will be making full use of it. I suspect it will also help us stock some young prospects, as if we are relieving a poor team of dollars... we will get value for that. With a reduced 50% split to players, an already ridiculously lucrative Canucks franchise makes even more. The savings Aquilini would have is significantly more than taking on half a Lecavalier contract.


I already quoted myself, see clip below, as having IMO a much better way to spend $25 mill less than acquiring Vinny, and IMO opinion securing a substantially better opportunity to win a cup. Would I value Vinny if he won us a cup? Sure, but I believe we can win a cup and be much better postured with a different scenario.

A money deal, and it would be the money that attracts Florida but still helps them(???); Bjugstad and Campbell for Lou, Ballard and a first? Why, because as many puck moving (via the pass) D we have; we do not have a puck carrying guy who can lug the puck under pressure! Half Ballard's salary (3 years) + Campbell's (4 years) is $34.6 for a component we desperately need. With them absorbing 1/2 Campbell's cap we actually save nearly $700K in cap space on Ballard and all of Lou's! And Campbell / Connauton gives us plenty of depth if Edler remains injured or does not re-sign (and if he does not we are already nearly at the next year's cap threshold!). Edler / Campbell (matched with the Twins, we might never actually spend time in our D zone ;) ) Hamhuis/Bieksa Connauton / Garrison That looks pretty frickin dynamite to me with Lou's cap hit to spend on any short term help at forward for a run this year. We would still have Bjugstad, Jensen, Connauton and Kassian to keep us vibrant over time. Aquilinni would recover almost all Campbell's $34 mill this year? And hopefully they have a good memory, and remember Bally was pretty effective for them for their comparable $6.3 mill investment over 3 years. And then they have HEAPS of money to find more good players to be effective! Ok, OK, Florida still wants to make the playoff's next year, but this trade makes waaay more sense than Lecavalier.


  • 0

#315 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,150 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:19 PM

Here is where we differ.

I do agree we could use a top 6 forward. Who couldn't? But I also believe we can win physical battles we could not previously having added Kassian, so it's not as big a need as it once was. It would also appear a lot less pressing, if we had seen a healthy not injured Kesler the last two play off years. I also call for a big bastard depth defender. But, it's also not quite so demanding a need with us just having signed Garrison. On these two I do agree, it's just not our biggest need which u have missed.

Further, depth D and forwards are generally available at the deadline.

Our biggest shortfall is an absolute premium top shelf D. Hamhuis is great, our best IMO, but 1 category below that elite level. Virtually every cup winning team has had a Norris winner (at some point in their career) still in their prime on the team. And if done by committee (see Carolina), they had a defensive stalwart like Hamhuis and a guy who could lug the puck. They are one of very few who have won with a by committee approach as we employ. And we still don't have a puck carrying defender who can rush the puck against pressure.

Chara, Weber and Pronger types lug the puck against pressure by putting guys on their elbow and protecting the puck with their size, attracting the double team and passing. The Letang or Niedermeyer types, also Pietrangelo and Doughty, simply have too much speed and ability to handle the puck (which seperates them from Edler at the other end of the spectrum) and can break pressure. It also allows them to gain the zone on the PP, rushing the puck. Either is fine?

But we cannot do without to be a truly elite team. Carolina's window was very short and Boston and L.A. remain cup favourites because they have a Norris candidate.

Investing in Lecavalier is the wrong direction!



Yep... I am no part of his claim. I do think Lecavalier would be a definite upgrade on Raymond on the 2nd line... but the point of my posts was that the possible changes to the CBA could completely open up the market for Luongo and give us lots of possibilities. Tampa being just one example of a deal that didn't work under the old rules, and might under the new ones.

Bjugstad is also a possibility, amongst several others... I don't think that having Gaunce or Mallet change the desirability of having him at all. Neither of them is near the prospect he is, and I think his worst case potential is an Arnott type player... his best case is a bigger, meaner version of Getzlaf. Neither one is anything to sneeze at. If they all reached close to their potential a Jensen-Bjugstad-Kassian line could anchor our roster for a decade after the Sedins are gone.

I think most can agree on the needs of the team, and I am sure MG is going to be able to fill them with the best deal available:

1x top 6 forward
The top 6 forward is hardest to fill, especially since we ideally need a big/tough/playmaking guy to complement our existing core.

1x bottom 6 forward
For a bottom 6 guy, we could even get a cheap option like Arnott to fill in for a year, or see if one of our guys like Pinizotto/Volpatti can make the jump. I am not as convinced that we need a 3rd line centre as some people... if Malhotra is recovered, then he and Lapierre are a pretty decent duo. Ebbett is fine for injury backup in an emergency situation. More centres are always good though, MG seems to love guys who can play all three positions.

1x bruising stay at home 3rd pairing defenceman
#6/7 defencemen aren't too hard to find... an Alberts type who is also good at punching people in the face and making sure no one runs Tanev or our smaller forwards would be handy.

1x veteran backup goalie (assuming Luongo is traded)
Veteran backups are a dime a dozen at minimum wage.... whoever we trade Luongo to will probably even want to unload one to us.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 21 October 2012 - 04:46 PM.

  • 0

#316 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:49 PM

So you've been arguing all along that the Canucks should have traded Schneider and kept the "declining" Luongo.

Your logic gets more and more convincing with each post.

Corey Perry
2010/11 98 points
2011/12 60 points

St Louis 99, 74

Ovechin 85, 65

Zetteberg 80, 69

Brad Richards 77, 66

Sound the alarms!!!! The stars of the NHL are in decline!!!

The opposite could be said about Spezza, Kovalchuk, Malkin... stars on the rise!!!

Your short term one year signs of decline are simplistic king.

Two of the last three Hart trophies = decline haha.

Lecavalier - now there is your sign of steady decline - 55% over 6 years.

Keep on derping.

You're picking and choosing players to support your very weak arguement.

Are the Sedins in decline? Maybe, maybe not.

Will it happen? Of Course.

Will it happen soon? Most players are on the decline of their careers in their mid 30s. The Sedins are 32 going on 33. If they are not on the decline it will happen within the next two or three seasons.
  • 0

#317 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:57 PM

Our biggest shortfall is an absolute premium top shelf D. Hamhuis is great, our best IMO, but 1 category below that elite level. Virtually every cup winning team has had a Norris winner (at some point in their career) still in their prime on the team. And if done by committee (see Carolina), they had a defensive stalwart like Hamhuis and a guy who could lug the puck. They are one of very few who have won with a by committee approach as we employ. And we still don't have a puck carrying defender who can rush the puck against pressure.

Chara, Weber and Pronger types lug the puck against pressure by putting guys on their elbow and protecting the puck with their size, attracting the double team and passing. The Letang or Niedermeyer types, also Pietrangelo and Doughty, simply have too much speed and ability to handle the puck (which seperates them from Edler at the other end of the spectrum) and can break pressure. It also allows them to gain the zone on the PP, rushing the puck. Either is fine?


I don't disagree at all... I many times argued that we should give up WHATEVER it took to get Weber. Not only to have a true #1 guy... but also how it would help our matchups all the way down the D core. Weber/Hamhuis as a first pairing means Bieksa/Edler/Garrison match up against lesser opponents... making them significantly better. It also means that instead of having to log huge minutes and avoid the penatly box at all costs... a guy like Bieksa can go back to playing a more rough and tumble game on the edge. It is where he is at his best, but he simply is not permitted to right now.

The Weber ship has sailed and there simply is no avenue to get an elite defenceman in the foreseeable future. There isn't a team in the league that has one who would give him up for Luongo or anything we can offer (and won'tmake our team worse).
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#318 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:06 PM

So you've been arguing all along that the Canucks should have traded Schneider and kept the "declining" Luongo.

Your logic gets more and more convincing with each post.


The logic is that we could've gotten a king's ransom for Schneider, and Luongo is still very good - as I've said this whole time.

Goaltending here remains stable, and even though Luongo is not the same 27 year-old who carried this team on his back, he's still a top-10 guy who has matured incredibly in his time here.

So the equation comes down to:
-2011/12 Vancouver Canucks minus a backup goaltender plus whatever Schneider yields us

Instead of:
-2011/12 Vancouver Canucks minus a starting goaltender plus whatever Luongo yields us

Where/how is this logic flawed?
  • 0

#319 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,811 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:09 PM

TO just makes sense as Burke knows the value of game changing players. Has been in obvious discussions and usually gets his man. He also is under intense pressure to field a playoff team.

1st rd 2013
Tyler Bozak
Matt Lombardi (cap reasons)
Cody Franson


1.) I have doubts that Burke would trade off his 1st in what is supposed to be a deep draft year. If nothing else, I suspect he would have nightmares of this becoming the Kessel trade v.2. Not many folks thought the Leafs would get a lottery pick that year.

This being said, if Gillis could pry it out of Burke's hands, it could well turn in to a low- middle of the pack type of pick.

2.) Lots of folks in Toronto appear to believe that Bozak is going to Vancouver in this deal. Some of them even believe that he is the only asset going to Vancouver in this deal.

He could fit well on the 3rd line. He's only 26 and has pretty decent size. He can produce points (18g 29a 47pts) and won almost 53% of his face-offs. A down side is that he has only one year left on his contract.

3.) Not interested in Lombardi as a cap dump, although I do recognize that Burke will want to include a bad contract in the deal. I would push for MacArthur, although I suspect the Leafs wouldn't want to lose him.

4.) I would like the Canucks to get Franson. He does (apparently) have an out clause on his contract, so he could show up here if he was traded by Toronto. This being said, where would he play? The top-4 is pretty solid, and I don't think he wants to play bottom pairing minutes (something which I believe was a sticking point on his not signing with the Leafs).


regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#320 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:50 PM

The logic is that we could've gotten a king's ransom for Schneider, and Luongo is still very good - as I've said this whole time.

Goaltending here remains stable, and even though Luongo is not the same 27 year-old who carried this team on his back, he's still a top-10 guy who has matured incredibly in his time here.

So the equation comes down to:
-2011/12 Vancouver Canucks minus a backup goaltender plus whatever Schneider yields us

Instead of:
-2011/12 Vancouver Canucks minus a starting goaltender plus whatever Luongo yields us

Where/how is this logic flawed?


Schneider's value is going nowhere but up.
Luongo's value is steady - perennial top 10 guy.
You've been whining for a hundred pages that Gillis blew it, should have moved Schneider, waited too long, fighting for table scraps now for Luongo, waivers, blah blah etc.
But what you say about the guy you claim he should have kept -
"He's now 33, has a shaky reputation, and is coming off of a so-so year on the President's Trophy team. If you think this is the same guy that arrived in 2006, you are dreaming."
Why keep him then, king of contradictions?

BTW, that was an obvious typo, but nice dramatic statement on your part. Of course I'm not guaranteeing a Cup if Lecavalier were to be acquired. But it would help. Certainly a lot more than Nick Bjugstad would.


"which this would do".
typo or brain cramp? looks more like a braincramp. I don't see any typing errors there king.
  • 1

#321 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:53 PM

You're picking and choosing players to support your very weak arguement.

Are the Sedins in decline? Maybe, maybe not.

Will it happen? Of Course.

Will it happen soon? Most players are on the decline of their careers in their mid 30s. The Sedins are 32 going on 33. If they are not on the decline it will happen within the next two or three seasons.


You're oblivious to the point - the point being that virtually every player's production fluctuates from one year to another at some point in their career - and one year of variance like that is not enough to indicate a decline. It doesn't matter which player you choose to evidence the point - there are literally so many.
Next time perhaps you should read the conversation instead of jumping in and cherry picking.
Your question - "are they in decline, maybe maybe not" - qualifies my point.

Edited by oldnews, 21 October 2012 - 06:54 PM.

  • 0

#322 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:57 PM

You're oblivious to the point - the point being that virtually every player's production fluctuates from one year to another at some point in their career - and one year of variance like that is not enough to indicate a decline. It doesn't matter which player you choose to evidence the point - there are literally so many.
Next time perhaps you should read the conversation instead of jumping in and cherry picking.
Your question - "are they in decline, maybe maybe not" - qualifies my point.

Two points in time provides a trend and the latest points (seasons) show a trend that is pointing downward.
  • 0

#323 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:09 PM

Two points in time provides a trend and the latest points (seasons) show a trend that is pointing downward.


That is patently false and maybe you should have paid a little attention to your grade 8 math class.

I can only assume you are trolling for amusement, because I don't think anyone could actually make that argument in reality.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#324 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,469 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:14 PM

Do i need to remind the Kadri lovers here he spent the off season at the great Roberts camp then showed up at the Marlies camp fat and out of shape. Eakins said he was almost at the bottom of all the players for body fat content. Of couse he would look good in a trade for Luongo..if you are a leaf fan. Toronto can keep him and Bozak as well.
  • 0

#325 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:26 PM

In reality I don't want anything Burke has attempted to develop or any regulars he tends to ice. The regulars only know how to lose, would not work in a Vigneault system as Toronto forwards don't tend to back check. Realistically I would want something untampered from Toronto, be that Tyler Biggs or a draft pick but I'd rather stay away from guys like Bozak and Kulemin. I'm sure some people on here must still remember the Wellwood saga. Kadri is Wellwood 2.0. Unfit for Marlies camp how would he manage here?
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#326 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,567 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

That doesn't take away from the fact that it was a decline, no matter how you want to try and spin it. Did Sedin's numbers drop in 2011 relative to 2010? YES. Did Sedin's numbers drop in 2012 relative to 2011? YES. Pretty cut and dry. Do you refute these facts?


So you agree then that Garrison is on the rise.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#327 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:32 PM

Just to quickly address the first part of your post I didn't quote.

I dont think there are many other teams that are a good fit for this (Luongo) trade other than Toronto or Florida myself.

I think most can agree on the needs of the team, and I am sure MG is going to be able to fill them with the best deal available:

1x top 6 forward
The top 6 forward is hardest to fill, especially since we ideally need a big/tough/playmaking guy to complement our existing core.


Yeah I agree, I think from Toronto Grabovski would be the #1 guy I would want, but McArthur or Kulemin wouldn't be bad if we could get them.

If we can't I have faith in Kassian to potentially grab that spot, and though I was a huge Raymond hater I'm intrigued to see if he has rekindled some of that 09-10 Raymond or if he is the same flimsy Raymond we have seen for the better part of two years. Then there is always Higgins, so we do have options if we can't get the right deal.

But I do agree this is prob our biggest need.

1x bottom 6 forward
For a bottom 6 guy, we could even get a cheap option like Arnott to fill in for a year, or see if one of our guys like Pinizotto/Volpatti can make the jump. I am not as convinced that we need a 3rd line centre as some people... if Malhotra is recovered, then he and Lapierre are a pretty decent duo. Ebbett is fine for injury backup in an emergency situation. More centres are always good though, MG seems to love guys who can play all three positions.


It depends what line you are looking at?

I think if Lappy can play at his best again he can fill that 3rd line role, if we can't get another option through trade. I also really believe Pinnizzotto will stick with the big club, he should he has been great, very impressive and he could emerge has a big 4th line player for us.

Although I wouldn't mind getting a versitile bottom 6 forward (Someone like Sobotka for example) I don't see it as a huge need at the moment.

1x bruising stay at home 3rd pairing defenceman
#6/7 defencemen aren't too hard to find... an Alberts type who is also good at punching people in the face and making sure no one runs Tanev or our smaller forwards would be handy.


I don't think we need another one, we still have Alberts and Tanev is ready to be an NHLer now. Him and Ballard have good Chemistry on the 3rd pair and our top 4 is set, Alberts is fine as that #7 that can come in when he is needed, so I don't think we need one.

1x veteran backup goalie (assuming Luongo is traded)
Veteran backups are a dime a dozen at minimum wage.... whoever we trade Luongo to will probably even want to unload one to us.


I hope although I wouldn't be apposed to giving Lack some time up here, he has been really impressive. If we can't get the right guy through trade then I think Lack is better than anyone who is still avaliable in Free Agency.
  • 0

zackass.png


#328 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:41 PM

In reality I don't want anything Burke has attempted to develop or any regulars he tends to ice. The regulars only know how to lose, would not work in a Vigneault system as Toronto forwards don't tend to back check. Realistically I would want something untampered from Toronto, be that Tyler Biggs or a draft pick but I'd rather stay away from guys like Bozak and Kulemin. I'm sure some people on here must still remember the Wellwood saga. Kadri is Wellwood 2.0. Unfit for Marlies camp how would he manage here?


I disagree but I'm not gunna go through that again, I have already made a ton of posts on that.


Anyways I wouldn't mind some of there players, I dont know why you don't some of them could be good players on our team if we got them. Here's a few I wouldn't mind.

Grabovski: he has been one of there best player's, he works hard, scores big goals, and his playmaking style would fit perfectly on our 2nd line, & he can play wing so he can stay in the top 6 when Kesler comes back.

He's really the only guy I want badly on there team, but I wouldn't mind any of these guys:

Kulemin: If He could play at that 30 goal 50+ point form again then he wouldn't be bad, he's great offensive, pretty big, good speed, doesn't get knocked down easily and can hit, I wouldn't mind him as long as there are other things in the deal

Bozak: I know people dont think of him as much, and I didn't either but he did get 50 points last year, he is good offensively and can be a responsable two-way player, if we can't get Grabovski I wouldn't mind getting him and something else/some other stuff.

McArthur: Not a bad two way player, he's not really a great fit no he's not someone I want badly but if all else fails I wouldn't mind him, I think he is like Higgins but a bit better skillset, better offensively, but basicly that same work hard, two way game that Higgins has.


As I said the only I guy I would really like is Grabo, but I wouldn't be completely apposed to getting only of those guys if we could get a prospect and maybe in the deal aswell.
  • 0

zackass.png


#329 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:42 PM

So you agree then that Garrison is on the rise.

So you agree then that Garrison is on the rise.


Once the season gets underway I think Garrison will be viewed as the best value signing of the summer. A lot of the various hockey pool magazines prediction Jason to score in the low to mid 30 point range. I think Garrison will be good for 15 goals and 25 assists, the big difference is a much better power play than he's use to.
  • 0

#330 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:09 PM

Once the season gets underway I think Garrison will be viewed as the best value signing of the summer. A lot of the various hockey pool magazines prediction Jason to score in the low to mid 30 point range. I think Garrison will be good for 15 goals and 25 assists, the big difference is a much better power play than he's use to.


I said the bolded part right after Garrison signed here.

15 goals is a bit high IMO. I expect 10 goals 30 Assists from of him.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.