Pears Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'm not really sure how this relates to your claim of Burrows struggling last playoffs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briana Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Lu was spotted at YVR airport. He is in town...Who knows maybe something going on with the Canucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Better call the repair man....your sarcasm detector seems to be on the fritz... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Lu was spotted at YVR airport. He is in town...Who knows maybe something going on with the Canucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Why the hell would it NOT go up if he started having a good season? You make no sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get real canuck fans Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.