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

#1201 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:39 PM

Sure. And that's part of why I never proposed that the Canucks go after him. I've said the above paragraph repeatedly, that he's a transformed Floridian now.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a lot of teams that would have interest, should he decide to want to play elsewhere.


Like I said, the only team that I could imagine would have any interest would be the Calgary Flames.

There was a time when acquiring Lecavalier may have made sense - that was back in 2001 when he was a young 20 goal scorer who was nevertheless in the Tampa doghouse and could have been acquired at a low - the -19, -25, -26 kind of one way play may have had something to do with that.
At this point, he is a serious anchor that no cap or budget conscious team would even think twice about acquiring - that excludes virtually every team in the NHL. Would he waive for Calgary? :lol:
  • 0

#1202 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:53 PM

Key word is in bold. The Toronto Maple Leafs are simply terrible. I'm pretty confident that neither Hamhuis, nor Bieksa, nor (especially not) Edler, would have similar stats on the Leafs that they do on the Canucks. Phaneuf on Vancouver's PP would be scary.


Phaneuf is a big part of that simply terrible. He is only a #1 on a terrible team like Toronto - and they are moving quickly to change that fact - a large part of the reason they are holding on for dear life to their young blueliners like Gardiner (and Reilly).

The point you missed is that Phaneuf had 22 power play points last year - that is a full half of his production. Phaneuf's stats are inflated by that whopping 67.5% of their power play time that he enjoys - and aside from that, he is entirely unimpressive. You can say the Leafs are terrible, and they are, but the one thing they have are one-way players like Kessel who make their powerplay their strongest asset. Kessel and Lupul are point a game players. The Leafs can score goals 5 on 4. They are a joke in virtually every other aspect of the game.

Forget Phaneuf - Garrison's booming point shot will do just fine - and everything else he brings will simply push Phaneuf one spot lower, outside the top 20 of Norris candidates.
  • 1

#1203 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:42 PM

Like I said, the only team that I could imagine would have any interest would be the Calgary Flames.


How can you say that? He's still good! Bad contract, yes. Clearly. But still a productive player with a heck of a resume. Who doesn't need a top-six C with size that can score? The answer is not many teams.
  • 0

#1204 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:47 PM

The point you missed is that Phaneuf had 22 power play points last year - that is a full half of his production. Phaneuf's stats are inflated by that whopping 67.5% of their power play time that he enjoys - and aside from that, he is entirely unimpressive. You can say the Leafs are terrible, and they are, but the one thing they have are one-way players like Kessel who make their powerplay their strongest asset. Kessel and Lupul are point a game players. The Leafs can score goals 5 on 4. They are a joke in virtually every other aspect of the game.


This is not a statistic that is unique to Phaneuf.

Edler had 22 points on the PP last year, too. Basically 50% of his points. There are a lot of guys who's stats are padded by PP production. I don't think that renders them any less impressive, because you still have to score (which is why Gillis' whole "we artificially inflated Cody's stats" argument was so ridiculous) - and it can be argued that it's even more impressive, because you're actually under pressure to score in those PP moments.

Forget Phaneuf - Garrison's booming point shot will do just fine - and everything else he brings will simply push Phaneuf one spot lower, outside the top 20 of Norris candidates.


Well, we'll see. You know my thoughts on Garrison, that the signing was not smart, and that it's going to wind up being a mistake.
  • 0

#1205 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:48 PM

Phaneuf is a big part of that simply terrible. He is only a #1 on a terrible team like Toronto - and they are moving quickly to change that fact - a large part of the reason they are holding on for dear life to their young blueliners like Gardiner (and Reilly).

The point you missed is that Phaneuf had 22 power play points last year - that is a full half of his production. Phaneuf's stats are inflated by that whopping 67.5% of their power play time that he enjoys - and aside from that, he is entirely unimpressive. You can say the Leafs are terrible, and they are, but the one thing they have are one-way players like Kessel who make their powerplay their strongest asset. Kessel and Lupul are point a game players. The Leafs can score goals 5 on 4. They are a joke in virtually every other aspect of the game.

Forget Phaneuf - Garrison's booming point shot will do just fine - and everything else he brings will simply push Phaneuf one spot lower, outside the top 20 of Norris candidates.


Garrison might be a Ballard 2.0 event. He hasn't played one game in a Canucks uniform yet and had only one successful season so far and that, with the Florida Panthers nontheless. Garrison in Vancouver is as a crap shoot as acquiring Ballard. I'd certainly take one Phaneuf (6.500 MIL) over Ballard and Garrison (8.800 MIL).

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 16 November 2012 - 03:03 PM.

  • 0

#1206 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:53 PM

This is not a statistic that is unique to Phaneuf.

Edler had 22 points on the PP last year, too. Basically 50% of his points. There are a lot of guys who's stats are padded by PP production. I don't think that renders them any less impressive, because you still have to score (which is why Gillis' whole "we artificially inflated Cody's stats" argument was so ridiculous) - and it can be argued that it's even more impressive, because you're actually under pressure to score in those PP moments.



Well, we'll see. You know my thoughts on Garrison, that the signing was not smart, and that it's going to wind up being a mistake.


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

On another, totally irrelevant note, a team expecting to "make them pay on the power play" will ultimately fail in the playoffs as penalty calls are drastically reduced, some times even inexistent. The Canucks better get some mean nasty players who play the game not between whittles but between the lines of what is accepted and what isn't. I did not see Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh or L.A. play between whistles nor play a straigh hockey game. The Canucks must regroup, team up for each other, stop trying to do the referees' job and play nasty Canucks hockey. As of now, they are an open book and some outside of Vancouver claim they're even the laughing stock of the game.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 16 November 2012 - 03:46 PM.

  • 0

#1207 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:24 PM

How can you say that? He's still good! Bad contract, yes. Clearly. But still a productive player with a heck of a resume. Who doesn't need a top-six C with size that can score? The answer is not many teams.


I say that simply because he has $48.5 million coming to him over the next 5 years and his $7.7 cap hit makes no sense to a contender, it makes no sense to teams that aren't competitive, it is a very particular context that could potentially have interest - the only type of teams that could consider him are clubs like Calgary who spend recklessly to the cap (but haven't got the cap space for him), or a cap floor deal like Florida made acquiring Campbell (who at this point is a far, far better player than VL imo). Put those terms into contexts and where does he make sense? Most teams could use a top 6 or 9 center yes, but who can afford that contract? It is far different than Luongo's context- unlike Luongo, the cap hit is far too high, unlike Luongo there are signs of decline that have been steady over seasons, unlike Luongo, he does not play a position nor show any signs of being able to sustain his play for another 3, let alone 5 or 8 seasons, and unlike Luongo, he isn't pretty much the only veteran starting goaltender on the market.
  • 0

#1208 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:30 PM

His NTC hadn't kicked in yet, so that would be impossible.
These are the facts.


Haha, this just discredits his opinion even more.

Yes, you are right. It was before his NMC kicked in, though he was assured at the time he was not being shopped, as he also mentioned liking it in Tampa Bay. Point is, there is a market for good players whatever the contract. Nash is a good example of such a recent move: six years left at $7,800,000.00 a year.


Except Nash's play is worth of a big salary, Lecavalier's isn't. Plus Nash is younger.

The problem is that hockey is a much more teammate-dependent game and individual performance can't really be broken down beyond goals, assists, sort of +/-, and then the various eye tests (skating, passing, shooting, etc.).


Actually the best way, that is better than all those, is watching the games and analyzing how they play closely.

Forget Phaneuf - Garrison's booming point shot will do just fine - and everything else he brings will simply push Phaneuf one spot lower, outside the top 20 of Norris candidates.


Exactly, this earned my +1.

This is not a statistic that is unique to Phaneuf.

Edler had 22 points on the PP last year, too. Basically 50% of his points. There are a lot of guys who's stats are padded by PP production. I don't think that renders them any less impressive, because you still have to score (which is why Gillis' whole "we artificially inflated Cody's stats" argument was so ridiculous) - and it can be argued that it's even more impressive, because you're actually under pressure to score in those PP moments.



Well, we'll see. You know my thoughts on Garrison, that the signing was not smart, and that it's going to wind up being a mistake.


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

Odds are if we had Dion on our team, after seeing the way AV treats Ballard, and judging by the fact that niether Edler, Hamhuis or Phaneuf can play the right side efficiently. On the depth chart Phaneuf would probably slot in on the 3rd pair
  • 0

zackass.png


#1209 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,547 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:34 PM

I would love for people to stop trying to police a hockey discussion for "intelligence" - so that we can simply proceed in an inclusive way, without attempts to exclude posters who are inoffensive, but not perceived by some to be as "intelligent" as themself.

You are free to use your "ignore preferences" to ignore the posts, signatures, or messages of any users.

There is probably also the option of creating an "intelligent conversations" thread.

You misunderstand.

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

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

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

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

You're suggesting I go make my own thread so I can get the intelligent discussion I hope for on this forum right after you mention "we can simply proceed in an inclusive way" - which is entirely contrary to the idea of having one thread to keep the discussion in. That would be akin to me suggesting you have a separate "discuss the ways that King is wrong on any number of subjects" thread so the rest of us can proceed in peace.
  • 2

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1210 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:42 PM

I say that simply because he has $48.5 million coming to him over the next 5 years and his $7.7 cap hit makes no sense to a contender, it makes no sense to teams that aren't competitive, it is a very particular context that could potentially have interest - the only type of teams that could consider him are clubs like Calgary who spend recklessly to the cap (but haven't got the cap space for him), or a cap floor deal like Florida made acquiring Campbell (who at this point is a far, far better player than VL imo). Put those terms into contexts and where does he make sense? Most teams could use a top 6 or 9 center yes, but who can afford that contract? It is far different than Luongo's context- unlike Luongo, the cap hit is far too high, unlike Luongo there are signs of decline that have been steady over seasons, unlike Luongo, he does not play a position nor show any signs of being able to sustain his play for another 3, let alone 5 or 8 seasons, and unlike Luongo, he isn't pretty much the only veteran starting goaltender on the market.


If Lecavalier were to become available, there would be a lineup of teams looking for his services. 30 teams, 600+ players, the demand would definitely be there. Conversely, at this juncture, one could certainly require answers concerning his work ethic and his desire to win. That said, Stamkos has stolen the show away from Lecavalier and he would be better served toiling for another team. If and when he realizes this, then some teams will be bidding for sure. His game would definitely pick up on teams that have shown success.
  • 0

#1211 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:44 PM

Garrison might be a Ballard 2.0 event. He hasn't played one game in a Canucks uniform yet and had only one successful season so far and that, with the Florida Panthers nontheless. Garrison in Vancouver is as a crap shoot as acquiring Ballard. I'd certainly take one Phaneuf (6.500 MIL) over Ballard and Garrison (8.800 MIL).


Your analogy is pretty weak - apparently you haven't paid much attention to the type of player Garrison actually is. Your claim that he's only had one succesful season would suggest that you base that upon his 16 goals last year alone - if scoring equals effectiveness. His role in his first season was played primarily in a shut down role - a role in which he was considered quite "successful", particularly as a rookie. In the season you consider successful he managed 16 goals (on the hopelessly low scoring Panthers), but as I pointed out before, he played far less pp minutes than a player like Phaneuf, and continued to play a strong defensive role for the Panthers - in other words, he is a guy who plays a two-way game rather effectively at both ends of the ice. You can maintain that he hasn't played a game in Vancouver, or that his game may not translate here - as a counterpoint I would suggest that there is no reason to expect that a guy with a big shot who plays an intelligent two-way game would see his game diminish in Vancouver. Playing on a power play with the Sedins hardly hurts a player's scoring potential. Ehrhoff would be a good reference point - how did his game fare before coming to Vancouver and how has he fared after leaving? I think this Ballard v2.0 stuff is simply way out of context. Ballard is not a power play blueliner. He is also not about to take the top shutdown role from Hamhius. He doesn't fit the second pairing offensive role as Edler does. He struggled with some injuries and finding momentum (and trust from AV). He's actually a far better defenseman in reality than a person would suspect if they were to simply read what CDCers have to say.

In conclusion: Phaneuf is a Leaf and he sucks - no thanks.
Garrison is better.
Ballard is misunderstood. :bigblush:

Edited by oldnews, 16 November 2012 - 05:54 PM.

  • 0

#1212 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:46 PM

If Lecavalier were to become available, there would be a lineup of teams looking for his services. 30 teams, 600+ players, the demand would definitely be there. Conversely, at this juncture, one could certainly require answers concerning his work ethic and his desire to win. That said, Stamkos has stolen the show away from Lecavalier and he would be better served toiling for another team. If and when he realizes this, then some teams will be bidding for sure. His game would definitely pick up on teams that have shown success.


But the question is, how many teams that have the cap space to do it, would be willing to take the risk that he ends up being worth his huge cap hit again.

Unfortunately (and this is one of things I hate about the way the game has changed throughout time) how much a player makes, and how long he makes it for is becoming just as big of an issue when making a transaction as good the player is, and what the player will bring to your team.

It's the sad truth.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1213 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:49 PM

He struggled with some injuries and finding momentum and trust from AV. He's actually a far better defenseman in reality than a person would suspect if they were to simply read what CDCers have to say.

In conclusion: Phaneuf is a Leaf and he sucks - no thanks.
Garrison is better.
Ballard is misunderstood. :bigblush:


Have truer words even been spoken?? ::D :bigblush:

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

I guess it just ties in with what I said to Canucks_Hockey_101 above.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1214 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:56 PM

If Lecavalier were to become available, there would be a lineup of teams looking for his services. 30 teams, 600+ players, the demand would definitely be there. Conversely, at this juncture, one could certainly require answers concerning his work ethic and his desire to win. That said, Stamkos has stolen the show away from Lecavalier and he would be better served toiling for another team. If and when he realizes this, then some teams will be bidding for sure. His game would definitely pick up on teams that have shown success.


No point in your post really - nothing there to qualify your claim - 30 teams, 600 players - not really an 'argument' - and you didn't really engage with the reality of his salary and cap hit, which is extremely prohibitive.
  • 0

#1215 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:58 PM

But the question is, how many teams that have the cap space to do it, would be willing to take the risk that he ends up being worth his huge cap hit again.

Unfortunately (and this is one of things I hate about the way the game has changed throughout time) how much a player makes, and how long he makes it for is becoming just as big of an issue when making a transaction as good the player is, and what the player will bring to your team.

It's the sad truth.


It is the sad truth indeed. However, as there are GMs who have overpaid through this last CBA and will continue to outdo each other by overpaying throughout the next CBA, some GMs will take one the Lecavalier, Nash, Thornton, Gomez, Phaneuf of the game. This is a matter of supply and demand and whatever way one cuts it, the amount of above average players are far lower in numbers then the below average players. This is why such players as Lecavalier with his 50 points are in demand from time to time, especially as a 6'4" center; a rare breed. He is only two years removed from 70+ PTS/yr.
  • 0

#1216 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:00 PM

Have truer words even been spoken?? ::D :bigblush:

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

I guess it just ties in with what I said to Canucks_Hockey_101 above.


Hey I like Ballard. I think he got a raw deal in Vancouver. No clue why he became AV's punching bag. Just that, the way he's handling adversity, makes him a gent.
  • 0

#1217 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,547 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:04 PM

Garrison might be a Ballard 2.0 event. He hasn't played one game in a Canucks uniform yet and had only one successful season so far and that, with the Florida Panthers nontheless. Garrison in Vancouver is as a crap shoot as acquiring Ballard. I'd certainly take one Phaneuf (6.500 MIL) over Ballard and Garrison (8.800 MIL).

Garrison's not entirely comparable to Ballard because if for some reason he didn't produce offensively or earn power play time he'd still be a very solid defensive player. Granted he'd be overpaid if he ended up being used on the 3rd line but he'd at least be useful.

Ballard hasn't been useful for the most part, even if he has had some good stretches of play, but he isn't built as much for strictly defensive play and needs his strengths as a puck moving, hip checking defenceman to earn his keep effectively. He still has upside but has limited opportunity here.

Garrison is more comparable to Willie Mitchell, who had a $3.5M cap hit while he was here but was never an offensive threat with a big slapshot even when he did put up a string of points. Garrison has that offensive capability (plus the big slapshot) similar to Hamhuis - you don't expect high production but he's likely to put up reasonable points while being extremely sound defensively. Garrison is also a larger, stronger player.

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

On another, totally irrelevant note, a team expecting to "make them pay on the power play" will ultimately fail in the playoffs as penalty calls are drastically reduced, some times even inexistent. The Canucks better get some mean nasty players who play the game not between whittles but between the lines of what is accepted and what isn't. I did not see Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh or L.A. play between whistles nor play a straigh hockey game. The Canucks must regroup, team up for each other, stop trying to do the referees' job and play nasty Canucks hockey. As of now, they are an open book and some outside of Vancouver claim they're even the laughing stock of the game.

While I understand the idea you're getting at, a better comparison would be to have the Sedins have less offensive starts than they do since playing on the penalty kill wouldn't affect their plus/minus at all. Plus/minus events aren't generated in odd-man situations. We absolutely did so with Cody Hodgson to increase his trade value, although we aren't looking to trade the Sedin's but rather capitalize on their offensive talent.

While I don't agree nasty hockey is specifically necessary, we do have to adjust to the way the playoffs are different from the regular season. Intensity level and competitiveness may be more useful than cheap shots and face washes, as they aren't mutually inclusive. The trick is to find a way for us to be successful considering the team we have, not the team other teams have.

Edited by elvis15, 16 November 2012 - 06:19 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1218 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:04 PM

Hey I like Ballard. I think he got a raw deal in Vancouver. No clue why he became AV's punching bag. Just that, the way he's handling adversity, makes him a gent.


I didn't say you didn't, I wasn't refering to you about Ballard.

When I mention you what I ment was, that it is the same thing I had just said to you, that the contract means just as much as what he brings to some, and to other's its more.

And people are blind to when he plays well because all they think about is his contract.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1219 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:10 PM

It is the sad truth indeed. However, as there are GMs who have overpaid through this last CBA and will continue to outdo each other by overpaying throughout the next CBA, some GMs will take one the Lecavalier, Nash, Thornton, Gomez, Phaneuf of the game. This is a matter of supply and demand and whatever way one cuts it, the amount of above average players are far lower in numbers then the below average players. This is why such players as Lecavalier with his 50 points are in demand from time to time, especially as a 6'4" center; a rare breed. He is only two years removed from 70+ PTS/yr.


It's just a matter of will he ever be that player again.

He's huge and stuff but really 50 points is kind average for a top 6 forward, and you look at the players that produce like that and has much lesser contracts, it makes him very unappealing.

I use Bozak as an example, in the sense that you could get the exact same thing pretty much (aside from the size), at about 6-7 times less the salary.

Lecavalier is kind of unique cause there really aren't any comparables, Gomez is making 7.5, but he sucks and has sucked for a long time, Lecavalier makes 7.5 but as you say it's long gone from being a a 60-70 point player, still not worth 7.5 IMO but still a good player. It's just a matter of if people would take the risk, cause at his age there is just as good a chance he remains a 50 point guy that is overpaid, as there is him regain prior form.

For me the risk is way too high, he's getting paid like a 50 goal or 100 point player, When I think it is safe to say he will never reach that level again, atleast IMO.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1220 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:13 PM

I didn't say you didn't, I wasn't refering to you about Ballard.

When I mention you what I ment was, that it is the same thing I had just said to you, that the contract means just as much as what he brings to some, and to other's its more.

And people are blind to when he plays well because all they think about is his contract.


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

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

He plays to avoid mistakes, not to create opportunity. It is not so much Ballard's fault as it is the organisation's. For his sake, I wish him traded where he could be used according to his talent rather than a "tool" for rainy days.
  • 0

#1221 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:23 PM

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

That's something I would do personally, hopefully AV sees that the same way I do and he gets more of a shot.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1222 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:42 PM

You misunderstand.

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

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

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

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

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


No. There was no misunderstanding.

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

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

I missed the board rule that stipulated that only "useful discussions" shall be engaged in.
It's called a hockey discussion board.

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

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

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

By no stretch of the imagination is King the only poster who makes 'unreasonable' or 'unintelligent' posts or resists changing their opinion - virtually all of us do that - when you suggest that he be ignored so that "the rest of us can proceed in peace", there really is no such thing as the "rest of us" that you pretend to speak for.
  • 0

#1223 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:42 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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


We both know AV will further play with Ballard's head. That is the fear I have for Garrison once the honeymoon is over.
  • 0

#1224 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,547 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:49 PM

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

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

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

I'd agree contract can mean very little, when it's not causing an issue with cap space. When it is though, it can mean more than what the player is capable of (Salo, Mitchell, Ohlund all getting better offers elsewhere despite us wanting them to stay). Ballard is certainly worth more to us than he is to a lot of other teams considering his cap hit and what we'd get back, but there may come a point where we don't have a choice considering how close we are to the cap.

That's where suggesting Lecavalier would be sought after by even a majority of teams in the league falls short. He could certainly be serviceable, but at that cap hit wouldn't be able to garner much of a return. We'd have better luck trying to move Raymond for a relative value considering his much lower cap hit without his production being similarly lower.

You can't consider one without the other when looking at how a player might fit in with any particular team, which is really what we're doing in this thread when discussing the possible trade options for Luongo.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1225 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:53 PM

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


I dont know actually, Im kind of optimistic.

Ballard was great in the playoffs, and he and Tanev were rewarded more time accordingly, I think that boosted Ballard confidence and AV's confidence in Keith.

Plus you also consider that he will play with Tanev full time this season and that AV loves Tanev, so that also may garner the pair some more icetime.
  • 1

zackass.png


#1226 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,547 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:05 PM

No. There was no misunderstanding.

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

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

I missed the board rule that stipulated that only "useful discussions" shall be engaged in.
It's called a hockey discussion board.

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

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

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

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

Ah, but that's where not only I differ from your opinion on this, but so do others who would be much more active in threads like these (and the boards in general) if it wasn't for all the back and forth that accomplishes so little. Why do you think people complain about the people posting on these boards, it's not just for the people who seem to be all of 12 years old.

There is no board rule saying discussions should only be useful, but certainly there are that the thread should stay on topic and there have been multiple times that the discussion has denigrated into the forum equivalent of a shouting match, and that's not what many would see as helpful, useful, reasonable, intelligent or any other kind of discussion.

I'm happily continuing the discussion with those that are doing so and actually seem to be interested in actual discussion. Many of those same people also are a part of the group wanting to continue discussion with King, but I don't hold that against them. they all seem to be reasonable, as have you been for the most part, but it'd be nice to say we can continue that trend rather than lapse back into the shouting matches.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1227 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,753 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:08 AM

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


I agree with this strongly. I would like to continue debating and discussing the Luongo trade scenario, but I had to drop out back in the 2.0 thread because it descended into this endless pissing match between two particular posters, both intent on being the only right one.

On any other message board I frequent, the mods would have stepped in by now and told two squabbling, dominating parties to take it to a private email discussion. I don't know why that doesn't happen around here, but, as Vonnegut would say, So It Goes.
  • 1

#1228 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:58 AM

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

I understand people being kinda worried after the way the Ballard started off as a Canuck, but to write him off right now is unfair and a very terribly based opinion as far as im concerned.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1229 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:30 AM

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


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

And I'm not sure what you mean by "Moneyball stat padding". Have you read the book? What Oakland did was look for undervalued statistics - OBP, specifically. They frowned at the guys who looked the part - ie, Joe Colbourne, Nick Bjugstad - and focused instead on the heavily productive player. Kyle Wellwood is the perfect example of a "Moneyball" player - would've been a 1st round pick by Beane if he was managing an NHL team.
  • 0

#1230 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:44 AM

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


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

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

It is far different than Luongo's context- unlike Luongo, the cap hit is far too high, unlike Luongo there are signs of decline that have been steady over seasons, unlike Luongo, he does not play a position nor show any signs of being able to sustain his play for another 3, let alone 5 or 8 seasons, and unlike Luongo, he isn't pretty much the only veteran starting goaltender on the market.


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

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