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

#1141 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:01 PM

Fine, but everyone will decline eventually. You don't actually think that Luongo's ascending, do you?


This is so typical of your m.o. Straw words you put in a person's mouth, because you simply can't respond to what they are actually saying.
I couldn't find anything resembling that in D-Mo's posts.
  • 0

#1142 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:02 PM

You are not wrong; but Reilly could easily be the center piece return. Connolly is not just a cap dump, he is UFA soon so not even a semblence of value. We do not want him; even Leaf forums are not proposing him with any seriousness. We would take Reilly straight up, but we also know Burke has a lot invested in him (claimed they would have taken him first overall).

So replace Connolly with Bozak and Reilly with both Gardiner (because if Reilly is that good, they keep him but Gardiner becomes expendable) and Colburne. We posture that we'll take on Connolly if they add Kadri as well, they knock it back, keep Bozak and accept as is; Colburne and Gardiner.

See what we did there? Used Burkie's own B.S. against him to get what we wanted in the first place! And considering their cap after next year, they still have veterans, their own top prospect in every position (save Colburne, but he's a mid calibre prospect anyway) and a bundle of money to spend in 2013/14. It would be a good deal for them.

And FTR; that's what Lou should be worth as soon as guys stop posturing that his contract is a detriment, when they in fact need him...

File these in the severe overpayment folder.

Apparently Reilly has already succeeded Gardiner as the next premature god-send from Lalaland.

Lol at those still in denial that if the Canucks move a goaltender, it will be Luo.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 15 November 2012 - 04:05 PM.

  • 0

#1143 Mufasa

Mufasa

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:05 PM

Lp
  • 0
RIP - Rick Rypien
PSN - BthaKing



#1144 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,517 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:08 PM

He requested a trade.

And he said himself that it is his time to move on. I don't really want to go find a link, but I assure you he did.

After the playoffs, he said he wouldn't block a trade considering the goaltending situation and later during an interview he said he though it was time to move on. Some have jumped to the conclusion that it means he's demanded a trade, which is not the case.

I think, if the right deal came along for Schneider, Luongo would consider staying. Obviously all that would have to be cleared up before putting pen to paper on a trade involving Schneider, but Luongo is still the goalie most likely to be moved at this point.

I do like the fact that you said "Canucks won't trade Schneider for"... At the very least, one must be open to the idea that either goaltender could be moved in light of the right pieces offered.

As it stands today, Schneider is much more movable than Luongo. Good on you.

I'd say Schneider has more value in a trade than Luongo, even though he's not proven as a starter quite yet. I've already mentioned above how I think it's possible, but unless a deal comes along where we're given a too-good-to-refuse offer, then Luongo has the much greater chance of being the goalie that's moved.

You mention Rielly straight up, and Murray has also been mentioned, but I'd only consider a couple of D-men straight up for Schneider. Someone like Adam Larsson or Dougie Hamilton would be an easy choice, but I'd wonder if even New Jersey would consider it despite their need for a future star goalie. Some other secondary options could be Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Brandon Gormley or Erik Gundbranson but I think Gillis would only make a straight up deal for a big right handed D-man (assuming he feels we can keep Edler).

There are similar forward prospects that could garner a straight up deal, but we're more likely to be able to get a lesser package out of a Luongo deal than pick up someone of the calibre we'd want to get back in a Schneider deal.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#1145 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,791 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:11 PM

Yeah, and does that sound like anybody else familiar?

Like, someone that we're perhaps trying to move?


Like I mentioned earlier, for what Luongo brings to the table now, his cap hit is quite low compared to his contemporaries. There is some fear that he could decline to a point where he is overpaid, especially later in his contract.

Lecavalier is ALREADY overpaid - by a large margin (27% higher cap hit than Lu). His game has shown more decline than Lu's thus far, and as a skater, he's less likely to stay a quality top-6 center over the next 3-5 years than Luongo is likely to still be a quality starting goalie.

And finally, as has been pointed out many times, Luongo is not being shopped because he's a poor goalie, or because his cap hit is too high. It's because another player has come along who is even better, and there isn't room for both as starters. Whereas Tampa would jump at the chance to unload Vinny's contract, and worry about the hole at 2C later.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1146 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:13 PM

Different league all together;

Lecavalier is owed $10 mill each real dollars for the next 4 years, then $8.5, then in year 6 from now he descends to $4.5 mill. Thats as much real money owed in the next 5 years as Lou is owed in ten.

Lou is a bargain by comparison, also a $2.3 mill lower cap hit and playing better. You would be an idiot to take on Vinny.

Yeah, and does that sound like anybody else familiar?

Like, someone that we're perhaps trying to move?


  • 0

#1147 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:19 PM

Different league all together;

Lecavalier is owed $10 mill each real dollars for the next 4 years, then $8.5, then in year 6 from now he descends to $4.5 mill. Thats as much real money owed in the next 5 years as Lou is owed in ten.

Lou is a bargain by comparison, also a $2.3 mill lower cap hit and playing better. You would be an idiot to take on Vinny.


King thinks there'd be a big long lineup of GMs kicking and scratching for the opportunity to get VL - only his NTC is standing in the way :lol:
  • 0

#1148 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:27 PM

Sure Schneider has more trade value.

But he also has more value to us...

Lou may or may not have "demanded" a trade but it's his pretty clear preference. While he may not be as divisive about it as Bure was; an un-emotionally committed goalie (especially considering a tendency to have mental breakdowns as his only real weakness) leaves us clearly preferring Schneids.

After the playoffs, he said he wouldn't block a trade considering the goaltending situation and later during an interview he said he though it was time to move on. Some have jumped to the conclusion that it means he's demanded a trade, which is not the case.

I think, if the right deal came along for Schneider, Luongo would consider staying. Obviously all that would have to be cleared up before putting pen to paper on a trade involving Schneider, but Luongo is still the goalie most likely to be moved at this point.


I'd say Schneider has more value in a trade than Luongo, even though he's not proven as a starter quite yet. I've already mentioned above how I think it's possible, but unless a deal comes along where we're given a too-good-to-refuse offer, then Luongo has the much greater chance of being the goalie that's moved.

You mention Rielly straight up, and Murray has also been mentioned, but I'd only consider a couple of D-men straight up for Schneider. Someone like Adam Larsson or Dougie Hamilton would be an easy choice, but I'd wonder if even New Jersey would consider it despite their need for a future star goalie. Some other secondary options could be Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Brandon Gormley or Erik Gundbranson but I think Gillis would only make a straight up deal for a big right handed D-man (assuming he feels we can keep Edler).

There are similar forward prospects that could garner a straight up deal, but we're more likely to be able to get a lesser package out of a Luongo deal than pick up someone of the calibre we'd want to get back in a Schneider deal.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 15 November 2012 - 04:29 PM.

  • 0

#1149 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:32 PM

VL has one of the worst contracts in hockey, right up there close to Gomez' ridiculous contract. VL's vastly overpaid, he's owed 52+ mill over the next 6 seasons. No freaking way MG takes on that contract. Giving away Luongo in the process is a boneheaded proposition no one in their right mind would do that.
  • 0

#1150 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:41 PM

LOL; quoting myself... :rolleyes:

Really just an edit;

Or justifying my position; Gardiner and Colburne as a return is fair? Gardiner is a very good young player, but not a franchise player nor likely to evolve in to one. Akin to giving up Hodgson or Kassian, still a productive NHL lock. He does have skills that will help our team (puck carrying D). Colburne is the prospect to balance the fact they are getting the better player. And Colburne is also, as pointed out earlier, a mid grade not top shelf prospect. A good deal for the Leafs.

:canucks:

You are not wrong; but Reilly could easily be the center piece return. Connolly is not just a cap dump, he is UFA soon so not even a semblence of value. We do not want him; even Leaf forums are not proposing him with any seriousness. We would take Reilly straight up, but we also know Burke has a lot invested in him (claimed they would have taken him first overall).

So replace Connolly with Bozak and Reilly with both Gardiner (because if Reilly is that good, they keep him but Gardiner becomes expendable) and Colburne. We posture that we'll take on Connolly if they add Kadri as well, they knock it back, keep Bozak and accept as is; Colburne and Gardiner.

See what we did there? Used Burkie's own B.S. against him to get what we wanted in the first place! And considering their cap after next year, they still have veterans, their own top prospect in every position (save Colburne, but he's a mid calibre prospect anyway) and a bundle of money to spend in 2013/14. It would be a good deal for them.

And FTR; that's what Lou should be worth as soon as guys stop posturing that his contract is a detriment, when they in fact need him...


  • 0

#1151 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:13 PM

You're not paying attention to what's going on. I've not advocated for Vancouver to acquire Lecavalier. I'm raising a point about the contradiction of how CDCers scoff at trading Luongo for "only" Paajarvi, while they're simultaneously aghast at the notion of trading Zack Kassian for Vincent Lecavalier. That's the whole point of this discussion.


King, the differences should be exceedingly obvious - here is why no one is schooled by your lesson.
Luongo actually improves Edmonton - they have cap space and room to upgrade their goaltending.
Paajarvi is soft and a left winger - the Canucks need neither.

Of course they are aghast at the notion of trading Kassian for Lecavalier.
Kassian is a young, power forward, right winger - most Canucks fans have a clue regarding where a player like that could fit on the roster.
Lecavalier for Kassian, aside from the fact that the Canucks don't need a declining player like Lecavaiier with an albatross contract, adds almost 7 million in cap hit (it's called a salary cap), and creates an even bigger whole at right wing, and takes grit and youth out of the system.
Try again.
For a deal like that to make anything resembling sense, it would have to add numerous pieces:

Kassian, Ballard, Raymond
for
Connonlly, Lecavalier, Blujus

and even then, the Canucks are stuck with Lecavalier's anchor of a contract - any way you slice it, it's a disaster. I'd have to reneg on the deal above and insist that Tampa sweeten the deal to compensate for Lecavalier's negative value.

and then the Luongo deal would need to bring a roster blueliner back to replace Ballard - Phaneuf might make a decent third pairing guy... ::D

I'd rather keep Raymond and Ballard.

Edited by oldnews, 15 November 2012 - 05:17 PM.

  • 0

#1152 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

That "mediocre 2nd liner" has accomplished a lot more than Luongo has. 4X All-Star, Stanley Cup, Rocket Richard, King Clancy.

In addition, in terms of marketability, there are 60 top-six center spots, and only 30 starting goalie spots. So the demand for Lecavalier probably would be a lot higher than what it currently is for Luongo.


Do you really think he is still the same player that won the Rocket Richard, made all the all-star games, and lead Tampa to the Stanley cup?

Not even close, He had 49 Points last season. 49. For a guy making 7.5 Million. I would rather have Tyler Bozak,

Really, and how many of those top 6 center spots are filled with players that are Lecavalier's calibre or better? And of the few that aren't how many have the cap space to take on Lecavalier's huge cap hit? Probably less than the # of teams Luongo would be an upgrade for over there current goaltending.

Your grasping at straws, not to mention that this isn't even the point I was arguing about, but I guess you need to change the subject a tad since you realize I was right about the other stuff.

Interesting that you've just chosen to completely ignore Paajarvi's rookie year. :rolleyes:


I guess this is all you have left to save your argument after I buried all your other points.

Yeah let's look at it. 15 Goals, 34 points in 80 games and a -13. An Outstanding Rookie season... :bored:

I'm really not sure what your point here is.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1153 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:28 PM

After the playoffs, he said he wouldn't block a trade considering the goaltending situation and later during an interview he said he though it was time to move on. Some have jumped to the conclusion that it means he's demanded a trade, which is not the case.

I think, if the right deal came along for Schneider, Luongo would consider staying. Obviously all that would have to be cleared up before putting pen to paper on a trade involving Schneider, but Luongo is still the goalie most likely to be moved at this point.


I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you because I do agree with you most of the time and respect your posts and opinon but It has been reported numorous times that indeed he has.

http://vansunsportsb...-hear-about-it/

http://aol.sportingn...nto-maple-leafs

There's even a thread here about it.

http://forum.canucks...ng-with-gillis/


To me Luongo would prefer leaving, there have been reports, and even though reports like this aren't a sure thing by anymeans, there is still more behind it that just pure speculation.

But I do think there's no way we can keep him instead of Cory, unless the deal is just such a big overpayment that you would have to do it. He is in so much turmoil with alot/most of the fan base (Both Casual and invested fans), and adding the fact that Cory is already about the same calibre goalie only makes things worse in that respect, and for Cory overall aswell.

I'm a huge Luongo fan like you (I assume), and I do agree that he still likes the city & would be willing to stay if we don't get the deal done right away but even if he hasn't requested a trade and those reports are wrong, I still do believe he would rather move than stay here long term.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 15 November 2012 - 05:32 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1154 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:08 PM

This is so typical of your m.o. Straw words you put in a person's mouth, because you simply can't respond to what they are actually saying.
I couldn't find anything resembling that in D-Mo's posts.


D-Mo is making point after point about Lecavalier's decline, and the fact that it'll likely get worse.

That being the case, it is reasonable for me to counter with the notion that it is likely Luongo will also get worse - like he has been since 2007, what appears to have been his peak. You bring up Martin Brodeur as an example - playoffs notwithstanding, his year was not good. Nor was last year.
  • 0

#1155 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:11 PM

You are not wrong; but Reilly could easily be the center piece return. Connolly is not just a cap dump, he is UFA soon so not even a semblence of value. We do not want him; even Leaf forums are not proposing him with any seriousness. We would take Reilly straight up, but we also know Burke has a lot invested in him (claimed they would have taken him first overall).


You don't actually think the Leafs would trade Rielly, do you?

This question applies to everyone.
  • 0

#1156 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:13 PM

Like I mentioned earlier, for what Luongo brings to the table now, his cap hit is quite low compared to his contemporaries. There is some fear that he could decline to a point where he is overpaid, especially later in his contract.

Lecavalier is ALREADY overpaid - by a large margin (27% higher cap hit than Lu). His game has shown more decline than Lu's thus far, and as a skater, he's less likely to stay a quality top-6 center over the next 3-5 years than Luongo is likely to still be a quality starting goalie.

And finally, as has been pointed out many times, Luongo is not being shopped because he's a poor goalie, or because his cap hit is too high. It's because another player has come along who is even better, and there isn't room for both as starters. Whereas Tampa would jump at the chance to unload Vinny's contract, and worry about the hole at 2C later.


All reasonable arguments. Luongo's cap hit is acceptable - it's the 9-year commitment which is the issue.
  • 0

#1157 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

King thinks there'd be a big long lineup of GMs kicking and scratching for the opportunity to get VL - only his NTC is standing in the way :lol:


Yup, I think you might be surprised. 842 career points, Stanley Cup, Rocket Richard. Size, leadership. Still gets points.

It's OK, if he was on the Canucks I'm sure he'd become a first ballot HOFer to you.

Edited by King of the ES, 15 November 2012 - 06:17 PM.

  • 0

#1158 vv2

vv2

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 08

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

Yup, I think you might be surprised. 842 career points, Stanley Cup, Rocket Richard. Size, leadership. Still gets points.

It's OK, if he was on the Canucks I'm sure he'd become a first ballot HOFer to you.

lol exactly I haven't noticed him decline either jk, you act like he's the same player he was years ago
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#1159 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:25 PM

Do you really think he is still the same player that won the Rocket Richard, made all the all-star games, and lead Tampa to the Stanley cup?

Not even close, He had 49 Points last season. 49. For a guy making 7.5 Million.


He played in 64 games last season. 64.

That's a .77 PPG rate. For context, Ryan Kesler's PPG rate was .64.

Oh, but Kesler was "injured", right? HA!

Really, and how many of those top 6 center spots are filled with players that are Lecavalier's calibre or better? And of the few that aren't how many have the cap space to take on Lecavalier's huge cap hit? Probably less than the # of teams Luongo would be an upgrade for over there current goaltending.


All of the teams that I listed would likely have interest in Lecavalier, if the cap could be worked out. That's why I listed them. I don't think you're all aware that he's still a very good player. Good player, bad contract. Just like Luongo.

BTW, something for you all to think about; the way that you're all speaking about Lecavalier is basically how other NHL markets speak of Luongo. "Way overpaid", "past his prime", "albatross contract", etc.
  • 0

#1160 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,517 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:34 PM

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you because I do agree with you most of the time and respect your posts and opinon but It has been reported numorous times that indeed he has.

http://vansunsportsb...-hear-about-it/

http://aol.sportingn...nto-maple-leafs

There's even a thread here about it.

http://forum.canucks...ng-with-gillis/
...

Yup, no need for a pissing match, although I would love to have people stop replying to King so we can have something resembling intelligent conversations in this thread...

As far as the links, those are all about one source - the Kypreos tweet about the exit meeting - which was refuted by Gillis. The PITB article even talks about other sources saying he's provided his list of 5 teams when Luongo himself has stated he hasn't done so. Luongo has also mentioned Gillis hasn't asked him about the teams he'd be willing to accept a deal to and his agent has confirmed he and Gillis haven't spoken in some time about any possible trades.

If there were other sources, I could see it. If Luongo had said he's provided a list of 5 teams to Gillis, I could see it (if he'd demanded a trade he would have to provide that list as a part of the contract). If his agent had been in regular contact with Gillis up to the lockout asking about deals, I could see it. As it is though, I just don't believe it.

It was said earlier about the Bure deal as well, where it was obvious he wanted out and wouldn't play here again. We both agree Luongo will play if he isn't traded by opening night, but we'll have to see if his tune changes once the lockout ends as to how determined he is about a trade and wanting out of Vancouver.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#1161 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:12 PM

He played in 64 games last season. 64.

That's a .77 PPG rate. For context, Ryan Kesler's PPG rate was .64.

Oh, but Kesler was "injured", right? HA!


Ya he was, like his agent said you would have to have fallen off a turnip truck to think that the injury didn't affect his play.

And he's bang-on. I don't know why you refuse to believe he was injuried, when the clear facts (Games missed, Surgery, Rehab, Reports) Prove without a doubt that you are wrong.

All of the teams that I listed would likely have interest in Lecavalier, if the cap could be worked out. That's why I listed them. I don't think you're all aware that he's still a very good player. Good player, bad contract. Just like Luongo.

BTW, something for you all to think about; the way that you're all speaking about Lecavalier is basically how other NHL markets speak of Luongo. "Way overpaid", "past his prime", "albatross contract", etc.


I don't recall you listing any teams, excuse me I just missed it but you should re-post them, I didn't see it in your last reply.

And after looking through a few earlier posts of yours I couldn't find the list either.


And you and all them can think that all you want, but it's incorrect.

Luongo is still a star player (something Lecavalier no longer is), and has a much greater cap hit, which still makes him appealing dispite the length.


And I guess you still don't understand that when he retires the contract ends, you make it seem like they are stuck with the contract no matter what, when it is unlikely he will play that long IMO.

Infact, from what I have been hearing surrounding the CBA negotiations is that there is a strong possibility something could be implemented that would punish the teams with those types of contracts, by making that team take on the cap hit after the player retires, even if they were on another team when they retired.

Which would only make the contract seem less of a burden than it already is to the other teams.



Edit: Oh BTW that Phaneuf to Crosby comparison was classic, comparing the best player in the world to someone who isn't even a top 10 D-man in the league (Maybe not even top 15).

And again he said Phaneuf would be on the 3rd pair due to sides, which no matter how many times it is explained to you still it's getting through your head for some miraculous reason.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 15 November 2012 - 07:14 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1162 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:14 PM

Yup, I think you might be surprised. 842 career points, Stanley Cup, Rocket Richard. Size, leadership. Still gets points.

It's OK, if he was on the Canucks I'm sure he'd become a first ballot HOFer to you.


I'm aware of Lecavalier's past (including the lifetime -112) - Steve Yzerman has Hall of Fame numbers as well but I wouldn't give you Kassian for him either - if I had a choice between the retired Yzerman and the albatross $7.7 Lecavalier, I'd take the memories of Stevie Y and save the cap hit.

By the way - there is only one team in the NHL who would be interested in Lecavalier - the Calgary Flames.
They are desperate up the middle, and have terrible cap management/judgement.
His contract would keep guys like Bouwmeester and Cammalleri company...

Edited by oldnews, 15 November 2012 - 07:18 PM.

  • 0

#1163 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:18 PM

Speak in absolute terms if you will. Fortunately, outside of a few fanatics, it's business as usual and business dictates weighing all options. If there is a deal for Schneider then it's a deal for Schneider. If it's a deal for Luongo then it's a deal for Luongo. If both are staying then both are staying.

Blame Luongo all you want and unquestionably praise the one whose deeds are few if you will. Individualizing you anger and hurting perhaps the only man who could bring you absolute joy as a Canucks fan, winning a Cup assures this team cannot succeed. You chose the road of unconditional hate while expecting success.

Careful what you wish for, might weigh options instead of running blindly into a wall.

Honestly, that Cup wasn't for us. WE were the sideshow. A city full of some of the hungriest fans in the World gelled together to create a spirit of appartenance and thanks to CBC and Don Cherry, even Canada rooted for them. The Canucks were as isolated as the city is.

If you're going to blame Luongo for whatever, make sure you pass the blame to Burrows, Rome, Kesler and Hamhuis for their own reasons too.

As for last years against L.A. if you cannot see a 16-4 run speaking for itself, then you are indeed entirely blind to reality.


As I have said at other times, I do not hate Luongo, I have just had it with him and his annually pedestrian playoff performances, especially now that we have a seemingly stronger alternative (Schneider). It also doesn't help my personal opinion of him when so many posters here tout him as some sort of goaltending God when he's accomplished very little of real significance, NHL speaking. His tires are pumped by many.
I blame Luongo for being the highest paid and most important player on the team while he turns in very underwhelming performances at the most important times. The other guys you mentioned may not always be great either but they also dont carry the burden of being the most arrogant player, highest paid, and goaltender.
Last year's playoffs against LA, I saw Luongo turn in good to average regular season performances. I saw Schneider turn in elite playoff performances.
Once again, I dont hate Luongo, I'm just weary of seeing the same thing from him year after year.
  • 0

#1164 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

You don't actually think the Leafs would trade Rielly, do you?

This question applies to everyone.


Not for 10 first round picks, muahahaha!!!
  • 0

#1165 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:22 PM

All reasonable arguments. Luongo's cap hit is acceptable


the way that you're all speaking about Lecavalier is basically how other NHL markets speak of Luongo. "Way overpaid"


so you're saying that the way other NHL markets speak of Luongo is wrong

Edited by oldnews, 15 November 2012 - 07:26 PM.

  • 0

#1166 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:33 PM

D-Mo is making point after point about Lecavalier's decline, and the fact that it'll likely get worse.

That being the case, it is reasonable for me to counter with the notion that it is likely Luongo will also get worse - like he has been since 2007, what appears to have been his peak. You bring up Martin Brodeur as an example - playoffs notwithstanding, his year was not good. Nor was last year.


That has nothing to do with your suggestion that D-Mo thinks Luongo is "ascending."

Yes, I did bring up Brodeur as an example - and would add that New Jersey just signed the 40 year old to another two year contract. I also brought up Roloson and a handful of other examples.

I would also add that Brodeur 35, Hasek 36, Thomas 36, Esposito 36, Glen Hall 37, and Gump Worsely 38 all won the Vezina after the age of 35!

Edited by oldnews, 15 November 2012 - 07:42 PM.

  • 0

#1167 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:35 PM

so you're saying that the way other NHL markets speak of Luongo is wrong


Yep, that's gotta be it.

Because if there's any group of fans that are known for their objective nature, it's the fans of your Vancouver Canucks.
  • 0

#1168 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

You don't actually think the Leafs would trade Rielly, do you?

This question applies to everyone.


For the right price? Yes. In this case the price would be Schneider. Shenn was their future. What happened there?
  • 0

#1169 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:42 PM

That has nothing to do with your suggestion that D-Mo thinks Luongo is "ascending."

Yes, I did bring up Brodeur as an example - and would add that New Jersey just signed the 40 year old to another two year contract. I also brought up Roloson and a handful of other examples.
I didn't quite catch your response to the question of old top 6 centers.


I didn't suggest that he thinks he's ascending - I asked if that's what he thought.

And OK, if you're using Terry Sawchuk as an example of an old goaltender, I guess I can use Gordie Howe, Guy Lafleur, Mark Messier, Mike Modano...and hey, didn't Mike Gillis offer $20M over 2 years to a 37 year-old, back in 2008?
  • 0

#1170 JimLahey

JimLahey

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:43 PM

Yep, that's gotta be it.

Because if there's any group of fans that are known for their objective nature, it's the fans of your Vancouver Canucks.


I'm sure you're the exception though.

Luongo's contract is not bad (nor good) under the current CBA, and if the clause allowing his contract to be terminated upon retirement is still in place in a new CBA, then his contract is in no way terrible.

As you have admitted yourself, his cap hit is reasonable. Having that cap hit until retirement shouldn't be much of a concern, especially since he could be able maintain a starting goaltender's level of play into his late 30's (and possibly until he retires.)
  • 0

hL9YqYN.jpg





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.