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

#451 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:07 PM

Chicago: Trading him there without getting a big piece back (Hossa, Sharp, exc.) would be a career killer for MG. And I dont see any chance of them giving up a big piece. So what are we gunna get? Stalberg? They probably won't move Leddy, maybe Hjalmalsson but that's not a need we have a solid top 4, so what are we gunna get? Nothing, it won't work. if we give that core a star goaltender, then Idk how we will be able to beat them in the playoffs. This doesn't seem likely at all.

Tampa Bay: Stevie Y was interested in Schneider, the only way he wants Lu is if Lecavalier goes the other way, that's the only way. and No thanks to that, even if we only do have to eat up 3.5-4 million of it, (which might not even be the case, who knows what will be in CBA) but either way he isn't worth it, he isn't the 100 point player he was, he isn't even the 70 point player, who knoe's if he is even a 60 point player, I would say his best now is 40-50, he's aging, hes not worth the contract, I would rather just get Bozak rather than him. And they won't give us anything else that is really appealing.

New Jersey: If there playoff run proved anything it is that Marty Brodeur can still play at a high level, and with the contract they just signed him too there is no chance they will want Lu, and what are they gunna give us? They lost a few big pieces from there run, Parise, Ponikarovsky. So now that there line-up is greatly weaker what can they afford to give us? Nothing, it's not a likely scenerio at all.

Edmonton: Idk why Botch had to bring this up, there not going to give us anything big, and they dont really have alot that they could give us, plus it's probably not a huge priority for them, Dubnyk has been getting better and better, he has shown he can give them a chance to win and improving there defense is probably a much bigger priority for them as apposed to improving there goaltending. Very unlikely aswell.

Columbus: Lu won't waive his NTC to go there, and even if he would somehow, when you really think about it. why would they want him? sure a goalie like Luongo would be nice for them for sure but why would they want to do it at the price MG will want? They are a young team, they just lost there star, they aren't really in playoff contention, they are just building to a better future, why would they want to trade assets for a 33 year old goalie like Luongo. when those asset's could pay off in a much bigger way in the future when they are a good team? Unlikely aswell.

San Jose: They have Niemi, who is a starter and what are they gunna give us? Clowe. That's maybe it, but I dont know if they would do it and idk if I even want him, we wouldn't be able to get the same value and I highly doubt they even want him, Niemi has been fine, it's not Luongo is gunna be a huge difference maker, he's not gunna do a ton more than Niemi already has, that team has a decent goalie, they need to start getting younger and fix up some area's of there team, and right now I don't think goaltending is huge priority for them, not to mention there isn't alot they would be willing to part ways with. Again probably not likely.

Washington: They have 2 young goalies there, both played well (Neuvirth in the season, Holtby in the playoffs) those two can carry that team just fine as a tandem, then they can focus there assets on improving there forward group, and the rest of there skaters. There goaltending has been fine, it's not an issue at all as we saw in the playoffs, if anything it iss a strong point right now, they have other things to focus on.

Ottawa: Why? Anderson is fine for the time being and they have two good young goalies up and coming in Bishop and Lehner, then behind them Driedger isn't bad either. There team isn't ready to contend, last year was just a pleasant surprise, not saying they won't make the playoffs but right now they just have to go through this transition period where all there good young talent develops and replaces the old talent. This isn't them building into a cup contender. so since there not a contender, there is no reason to waste assets that could be better served later on.

NY Islanders: Similar thing to Columbus, they are young, they are waiting for there young talent to develop and the goaltending they have right now is good enough to hold the fort until Poulin can take the torch, and why would they want 2 goalies on lifetime contracts cause there is no way Dipietro is coming back our way.

Again, I dont see the same fit in any of these other teams like I do in Florida or Toronto, and right now Toronto seems the best.


How will we be able to beat them in the playoffs you ask? Seems rather simple actually. We beat them the same way they beat us almost 3 years in a row, by scoring unmercifully against star goalie Luongo.

Edited by Riviera82, 25 October 2012 - 06:08 PM.

  • 0

#452 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,877 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:07 PM

You said that the best time would be before the season starts. That's what I've been saying this whole time.



I have not flip-flopped at all; is that all that you guys have as a retort? Where have I flip-flopped?

Luongo will not be worth more in February. Why? Because Gillis will be desperate to unload him, and bidders will adjust their offer. Gillis is far more eager to offload him than anyone will be to acquire him, which puts him in a weak spot.

And where have I acknowledged that Luongo's deal will be 4 - 5 years? I haven't. Unless Luongo decides to retire, it's to be assumed that it's going until 2022. I'm assuming that it's going until 2022.

And BTW, I'm pretty sure that Luongo's family has moved to Vancouver. They spend their off-seasons in Florida.



Number 1, stop saying that my position is frequently changing, because that's just false and you're just using the canned retort of this site, much like "he was injured!" is the automatic response for Canuck non-performers like Kesler in the playoffs.

You haven't proven anything false. That is funny that you're asserting your opinion as fact, though. Nice work. "The needs of other teams" isn't going to change much - who needs a goalie? Make a list of the teams that might have a realistic interest in Luongo - not many. That list will then need to be whittled to teams that Luongo either won't go to, or Gillis won't trade him to. Shrinks even more. Other teams' need will always be a secondary concern. Mike Gillis will want to unload Luongo more than anyone will want to acquire him. That's what you're missing. Think Vancouver's keen to pay their backup goaltender $5.3M per year? Who's under pressure here?


I'm not even going to acknowledge your attempt to be condescending. I'm giving you the opportunity once again, for everyone who views this topic, state clearly your viewpoint on the Luongo trade. You will then be held to it. As you seem to claim the assertions are false, then prove me wrong.

Oh and once again you've tried to misconstrue my argument, I was dealing solely with the time it takes to make the trade. You've gone off on some tangent about non performers, a smokescreen which may have worked on someone else. And don't start a paragraph with 'number 1' and then neglect to list 2, 3 ,4 etc. it makes it look like you have the attention span of an 8 y/o.

Anyways make your thesis strong and coherent, you might finally convince someone (as you have yet to). What is your position on the Luongo trade?
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#453 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:13 PM

Is he the only Canuck that's struggled? Where was Burrows this year? Kesler? Booth?

Where were the twins in the SCF? Where was Kesler?


The difference between Luongo and the skaters is that Luongo struggles every playoffs for no apparent reason. Unless of course he's injured every year as well but the team never mentions it, idk.
  • 0

#454 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:18 PM

I'm not even going to acknowledge your attempt to be condescending. I'm giving you the opportunity once again, for everyone who views this topic, state clearly your viewpoint on the Luongo trade. You will then be held to it. As you seem to claim the assertions are false, then prove me wrong.


I've stated clearly the same viewpoint since Day 1. That is that this whole event has been badly mishandled by Canuck management, and now we're stuck trading Luongo, who's still very good, at a time when he has very little marketability.

There has been no flip-flopping in my position whatsoever. I would rather have moved Schneider - sold high - and kept Luongo. But that's not happening.
  • 0

#455 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:28 PM

I've stated clearly the same viewpoint since Day 1. That is that this whole event has been badly mishandled by Canuck management, and now we're stuck trading Luongo, who's still very good, at a time when he has very little marketability.

There has been no flip-flopping in my position whatsoever. I would rather have moved Schneider - sold high - and kept Luongo. But that's not happening.


Well when the player comes out and says he wants to be traded (which he has) then were not gunna hold onto him, I think under the circumstances we are under we have handled it pretty well.

We haven't given in to a sub par offer just to get rid of him, we are waiting till the right thing that is fair comes along and we'll take it.
  • 0

zackass.png


#456 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,338 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:52 PM

Is he the only Canuck that's struggled? Where was Burrows this year?

Of course you would think that 28 goals and 50+ points is 'struggling'.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#457 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,258 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:53 PM

Posted Image
  • 0

#458 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 04:17 AM

Of course you would think that 28 goals and 50+ points is 'struggling'.


I meant in the playoffs. The discussion was related to Luongo not being able to be counted on when the pressure was on.
  • 0

#459 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:54 AM

I meant in the playoffs. The discussion was related to Luongo not being able to be counted on when the pressure was on.

I won't argue that Luongo has had his share of playoff struggles, however, I think it's a bit unfair to say the same of Burrows.

Yes, he had a tough 2012 playoffs, but so did the entire Canucks' roster. (with the possible exception of the goaltenders) fact is, they ran into a very hot goaltender, on a team that was just hitting their stride, without their top goal scorer (a Burrows' linemate) in the lineup.

Tough for anyone to put up numbers in that situation...
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#460 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:25 AM

I won't argue that Luongo has had his share of playoff struggles, however, I think it's a bit unfair to say the same of Burrows.

Yes, he had a tough 2012 playoffs, but so did the entire Canucks' roster. (with the possible exception of the goaltenders) fact is, they ran into a very hot goaltender, on a team that was just hitting their stride, without their top goal scorer (a Burrows' linemate) in the lineup.

Tough for anyone to put up numbers in that situation...


Sounds like a nice run of excuses.

Could you not say, then, that Luongo ran into a very hot offense, on a team that was just hitting their stride, when he let in 7 goals against Chicago on repeated occasions?
  • 0

#461 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,338 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:44 AM

Sounds like a nice run of excuses.

Could you not say, then, that Luongo ran into a very hot offense, on a team that was just hitting their stride, when he let in 7 goals against Chicago on repeated occasions?

We're not talking about two years ago, we're talking about last year. There's not much any goalie can do when his team is getting dominated by a team that would go on to finish with a 16-4 record.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#462 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:55 AM

Sounds like a nice run of excuses.

Could you not say, then, that Luongo ran into a very hot offense, on a team that was just hitting their stride, when he let in 7 goals against Chicago on repeated occasions?



I'm not really sure how this relates to your claim of Burrows struggling last playoffs...

A goalie is basically on his own. (yes, he has defensemen to help him out, but he's the last line of defense) A forward relies on a partnership between himself and his two linemates. Take away half of that tandem, (not to mention that this particular half was the reigning Art Ross winner) and anyone would have a tough time, with or without an opposition 'keeper playing lights out.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#463 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:28 AM

Nice to see that someone besides me has thought of this.

Very possible that this could happen, and it would not be good. This is why I think there could be something to the rumors of Lou to Toronto already being done in principle. Can't expose the team to this potentiality.

You are so ignorant. Just about everyone who has participated in this thread has at one time or another answered their opinion to that situation, and just because you are the only one that shares your ridiculous opinion on the matter you think we haven't thought of it. It's a very real possibility, and of course all you want to hear is your own opinion in a deeper manlier voice. So anyone who thinks differently must not have thought it through.

Yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

As drummerboy pointed out, it would drive up his value, giving Gillis some extra bargaining power when talking to potential trade partners.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

I've written that 3 times now and I still can't figure out why.

I'll write it a couple more times, and it will come to me.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

Nope.

I think it would be much better for him to... let's say... have a good start.

Why?

Cause, then teams will see value and potential in him.

Teams may offer up a beauty proposal for Schneider that we could choose to accept.

We'll pick up more wins if he plays well.

I'm only just scratching the surface here.

Wow, explaining why it's better for Luongo to have a GOOD start was WAAAAAAAy easier than explaining why he should have a bad start.

But go ahead, expand on that bad start idea of yours.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#464 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 October 2012 - 10:44 AM

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

I've written that 3 times now and I still can't figure out why.

I'll write it a couple more times, and it will come to me.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

Nope.

I think it would be much better for him to...  let's say...  have a good start.

Why?

Cause, then teams will see value and potential in him.

Teams may offer up a beauty proposal for Schneider that we could choose to accept.

We'll pick up more wins if he plays well.

I'm only just scratching the surface here.

Wow, explaining why it's better for Luongo to have a GOOD start was WAAAAAAAy easier than explaining why he should have a bad start.

But go ahead, expand on that bad start idea of yours.


Better call the repair man....your sarcasm detector seems to be on the fritz...

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 26 October 2012 - 10:46 AM.

  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#465 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:20 AM

I'm not really sure how this relates to your claim of Burrows struggling last playoffs...


Are you saying he didn't? 1 point in 5 games, with top-line minutes?
  • 0

#466 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:23 AM

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

I've written that 3 times now and I still can't figure out why.

I'll write it a couple more times, and it will come to me.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

It wouldn't be good to have a great start from Luongo.

Nope.

I think it would be much better for him to... let's say... have a good start.

Why?

Cause, then teams will see value and potential in him.

Teams may offer up a beauty proposal for Schneider that we could choose to accept.

We'll pick up more wins if he plays well.

I'm only just scratching the surface here.

Wow, explaining why it's better for Luongo to have a GOOD start was WAAAAAAAy easier than explaining why he should have a bad start.

But go ahead, expand on that bad start idea of yours.


Yeah, because a "good start" will make teams forget that there's 9 years remaining on his deal, that he's 33 years old, that he controls where he ends up, and that the Canucks are desperate to move him.

Don't count on his value increasing if he gets off to a good start.
  • 0

#467 briana

briana

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 08

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:36 AM

Lu was spotted at YVR airport. He is in town...Who knows maybe something going on with the Canucks?
  • 0

#468 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:11 PM

Better call the repair man....your sarcasm detector seems to be on the fritz...

Oh sorry, haha.

Yeah, because a "good start" will make teams forget that there's 9 years remaining on his deal, that he's 33 years old, that he controls where he ends up, and that the Canucks are desperate to move him.

Don't count on his value increasing if he gets off to a good start.

Even funnier, RUPERT was being sarcastic, and you are agreeing with it anyway.

Why the hell would it NOT go up if he started having a good season? You make no sense at all.
  • 1

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#469 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:12 PM

Lu was spotted at YVR airport. He is in town...Who knows maybe something going on with the Canucks?

Or, he's in town cause he lives here.
  • 1

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#470 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 01:05 PM

Why the hell would it NOT go up if he started having a good season? You make no sense at all.


Read what I wrote one more time.

In a word: context.
  • 0

#471 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:20 PM

So Luongo having a good start would make him more or less appealing?

Yeah, because a "good start" will make teams forget that there's 9 years remaining on his deal, that he's 33 years old, that he controls where he ends up, and that the Canucks are desperate to move him.

Don't count on his value increasing if he gets off to a good start.

How does context change what you are saying in any way?

Are you just saying "context" to get out of having to explain the unexplainable?
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#472 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 October 2012 - 03:23 PM

Yeah, because a "good start" will make teams forget that there's 9 years remaining on his deal, that he's 33 years old, that he controls where he ends up, and that the Canucks are desperate to move him.

Don't count on his value increasing if he gets off to a good start.


1.) So if a team trades for Luongo, and he plays for them for say 4 - 5 years, and then he decides to retire, what happens to his contract?

Under the old CBA, Luongo would be retired, and his cap hit and salary are off the books, no?

Under the new CBA (assuming the cap buster punishment clause is kept in), when Luongo retires his cap hit returns to the Canucks.

In either of these circumstances, why is Luongo having "9 years remaining on his deal" a problem with regard to the team to which he would be traded?

2.) Yeah, Luongo is 33 years old. He has been, for the most part, injury free for his career. His reflexes are still good, and he will likely be able to play at a high level for another 4 - 5 years. Elite players can do things like that.

3.) I believe Luongo has noted a city or two in which he'd like to finish career. All the Canucks need is two of them to be bidding for Luongo's services in order to drive up the price. This being said, don't count on Luongo going to Florida. For all we know another team will show up and make a great offer to the Canucks. If they can convince Luongo that he can win a Cup with them, then he just may agree to go to this other city. This guy is a competitor, and there's no reason to assume that he just wants to sit in Florida for the next 9 years.

4.) The Canucks would like to move Luongo. They are not "desperate" to move him.

The Canucks would like to move Luongo sooner rather than later. This does not mean that Gillis has to give away Luongo to the first team than comes along and offers a 4th round pick.

5.) Luongo's price is already high, even if you do not accept this. If Luongo were still here at the start of the season, and he played well, it might indeed not drive up his price. This being said, there is no reason to believe that it will drive down his price.

So where's the problem? :)


regards,
G.
  • 2
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#473 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:59 PM

Gollumpus, always good to see you.

You were the original dude with a sign off, and it always gives your posts an exclamation mark.

Don't let TOML steal your schtick.

regards,
W.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#474 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,404 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:59 PM

The difference between Luongo and the skaters is that Luongo struggles every playoffs for no apparent reason. Unless of course he's injured every year as well but the team never mentions it, idk.


Um, no. Lu was a big part in us getting as far as we did in 2011.

In 2007, he had a GAA of 1.77 and a save percentage of .941.

In 2009 he had a decent GAA of 2.52 and a save percentage .914

His only truly terrible playoff year was 2010. 2012 was mediocre, but not horrible.

Do some research before you assume things.
  • 0

14ndb35.jpg
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for the awesome sig!

"Gino, Gino, Gino, Gino!"
Rest In Peace, Rypien, Demitra, and Bourdon


#475 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 08

Posted 26 October 2012 - 10:37 PM

Um, no. Lu was a big part in us getting as far as we did in 2011.

In 2007, he had a GAA of 1.77 and a save percentage of .941.

In 2009 he had a decent GAA of 2.52 and a save percentage .914

His only truly terrible playoff year was 2010. 2012 was mediocre, but not horrible.

Do some research before you assume things.


2011-12 his gaa was 18th out of 19 goalies who started 2 games in last years playoffs (only Fleury was worse)
2010-11 he was 8th out of 13th in gaa leaders
2009-10 dead last out of 9
2008-09 he was 5th out of nine.

average that out would be 10th out of 12.5 over the most recent 4 years
  • 2

#476 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,404 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 27 October 2012 - 01:12 AM

2011-12 his gaa was 18th out of 19 goalies who started 2 games in last years playoffs (only Fleury was worse)
2010-11 he was 8th out of 13th in gaa leaders
2009-10 dead last out of 9
2008-09 he was 5th out of nine.

average that out would be 10th out of 12.5 over the most recent 4 years


In 2011 he was inconsistent, but he was very, very good at certain times. See Chicago first three games and the game 7. He was also good against Nashville and SJ.

Also, keep in mind that our defense tends to have mental lapses in the playoffs. In 2010 our best defensive d-man was injured (Willie Mitchell). In 2011, when we collapsed against Boston, again, our best defensive d-man was injured (Hamhuis).

Just saying that we can't attribute every goal against to the goaltender.

Edited by ajhockey, 27 October 2012 - 01:13 AM.

  • 2

14ndb35.jpg
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for the awesome sig!

"Gino, Gino, Gino, Gino!"
Rest In Peace, Rypien, Demitra, and Bourdon


#477 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:31 AM

So Luongo having a good start would make him more or less appealing?


How does context change what you are saying in any way?

Are you just saying "context" to get out of having to explain the unexplainable?


It's pretty simple. How he plays is irrelevant. Nobody is questioning his talent/ability. It's the ancillary factors in this move that are bringing down Luongo's marketability; his age, length of contract, NTC, and the fact that most teams are already heavily invested in other goaltenders.

Make sense?
  • 0

#478 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:47 AM

1.) So if a team trades for Luongo, and he plays for them for say 4 - 5 years, and then he decides to retire, what happens to his contract?

Under the old CBA, Luongo would be retired, and his cap hit and salary are off the books, no?

Under the new CBA (assuming the cap buster punishment clause is kept in), when Luongo retires his cap hit returns to the Canucks.

In either of these circumstances, why is Luongo having "9 years remaining on his deal" a problem with regard to the team to which he would be traded?


Because they would be foolish and short-sighted to assume retirement. They need to take Lou's deal at face value.

4.) The Canucks would like to move Luongo. They are not "desperate" to move him.


Yes they are. Don't let Gillis' words suck you in and make you lose your reasoning.

The alternative to not moving him is having $5.3M of scarce cap space allocated to their backup goaltender, which, as well, would be a major, major negative distraction. They're desperate, and it's obvious.
  • 0

#479 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 27 October 2012 - 11:04 AM

It's pretty simple. How he plays is irrelevant. Nobody is questioning his talent/ability. It's the ancillary factors in this move that are bringing down Luongo's marketability; his age, length of contract, NTC, and the fact that most teams are already heavily invested in other goaltenders.

Make sense?

How he plays is not irrelevant at all. If he is playing well, then during the season there will be suitors. There is a lot more opportunity once teams have assessed their goaltending situation halfway in to the season. If Lu is hot near the trade deadline, then I guarantee there will be teams ready to take him on a run.
I might point out that Lu has not given a list of acceptable teams, or said he won't go to any specific ones. YOU may think he has a two team list, but if a contending team wants him for a playoff run, then I doubt he says no. That is my guess, but at least I recognize that it's just a guess.

The alternative to not moving him is having $5.3M of scarce cap space allocated to their backup goaltender, which, as well, would be a major, major negative distraction. They're desperate, and it's obvious.

Distraction to who? What does Lu's cap hit have to do with distracting the room? If he gets all prima donna, then there might be a distraction, but I think you are over estimating the situation. Again, that's my guess, and I recognize that I am just guessing.
Chances are that the goaltenders will play 50/50 especially with such a compressed schedule.
Also, you do remember what our team looks like even without the return from Lu, right? It's not like we have a terrible team while paying him 5.3M to play every other night.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#480 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,258 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 27 October 2012 - 11:07 AM

It's pretty simple. How he plays is irrelevant. Nobody is questioning his talent/ability. It's the ancillary factors in this move that are bringing down Luongo's marketability; his age, length of contract, NTC, and the fact that most teams are already heavily invested in other goaltenders.

Make sense?


Simply... dense.

Because they would be foolish and short-sighted to assume retirement. They need to take Lou's deal at face value.

Yes they are. Don't let Gillis' words suck you in and make you lose your reasoning.

The alternative to not moving him is having $5.3M of scarce cap space allocated to their backup goaltender, which, as well, would be a major, major negative distraction. They're desperate, and it's obvious.


You are more of a negative distraction than the pending Luongo deal - and btw, no one is sucked in by your 'reasoning'.
Your attempts to reduce Gillis to incompetence are what appear desperate.
And predictable, obvious, repetitive, short-sighted...
  • 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.