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

#1261 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,147 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:04 AM

Two problems with them.

-"Advanced" Stats. Things that are more complicated aren't necessarily more informative. Hockey is not nearly as easily quantified as 1-on-1 (pitcher v. hitter, fielder v. ball, etc.) baseball is.

-Based on 1 year only; which is again my problem with the signing. Dion Phaneuf's been a star ever since he entered the league in 2005; and he's younger than Garrison. Jason Garrison had a breakout year. Congratulations. But a 6-year, $4.6M per deal coming from it? Buying on the breakout rarely works out. In recent years, I bet Buffalo would like to take the Ville Leino signing back. And you can say that "we don't need him to score 16 goals", but we're paying him on that expectancy. 6 years is a pretty serious commitment.


I realize you don't like "advanced" stats, but if you actually look at what they cumulatively reveal, they tend to indicate what perceptive coaches and analysts already know by observation. For example in the case of Garrison - the stats revealed what analysts claimed - he has very strong even strength corsi numbers - and strong numbers two years consecutively against high quality of competition. His numbers were the best on the Panthers (one reason he was promoted to the top pairing), and he had spent a year on their shutdown pairing - which translated into making an excellent partner for Campbell. The fact that he was good enough to be promoted to the top pairing - on his off side - says alot. Not only did he show the offensive upside they expected, but he made Campbell a much better player as well by complementing Campbell's style of game - allowing him to carry the puck and join the rush, take some risks you can't without such a solid partner. That kind of complement, imo, is precisely the kind of player that Edler could benefit from as a partner - similar to Salo - when Salo was healthy through the first half of last season, Edler was exceptionally successful - he struggled down the stretch with revolving partners. I like what Garrison brings in a dual sense as a partner for Edler. I can't say the same about Phaneuf - imo his game isn't strong enough in his own end of the ice - which is why it was questioned widely whether in fact he is actually a better defender than the young, struggling Schenn was. Phaneuf partners primarily with Gunnarson - who is the more responsible defender of the two - Phaneuf essentially needs that - and therefore, not really a good fit in the Canucks existing scheme of things. The Canucks needed a guy with shutdown abilities/responsibility much more - and signed Garrison as a result.

Phaneuf hasn't been a "star" since 2008 - he hasn't been a top 20 blueliner since then (and despite upside, has always had holes in his game). At least in the case of Garrison we are looking at the present - the player he has been over that past two years.
As with any deal, only time will really tell - but Garrison is a very good risk to take (there is risk in every single transaction), given the shutdown aspect of a players game can be counted on for more consistency than the highlight reel.

Edited by oldnews, 18 November 2012 - 11:16 AM.

  • 1

#1262 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:23 PM

I realize you don't like "advanced" stats, but if you actually look at what they cumulatively reveal, they tend to indicate what perceptive coaches and analysts already know by observation. For example in the case of Garrison - the stats revealed what analysts claimed - he has very strong even strength corsi numbers - and strong numbers two years consecutively against high quality of competition. His numbers were the best on the Panthers (one reason he was promoted to the top pairing), and he had spent a year on their shutdown pairing - which translated into making an excellent partner for Campbell. The fact that he was good enough to be promoted to the top pairing - on his off side - says alot. Not only did he show the offensive upside they expected, but he made Campbell a much better player as well by complementing Campbell's style of game - allowing him to carry the puck and join the rush, take some risks you can't without such a solid partner. That kind of complement, imo, is precisely the kind of player that Edler could benefit from as a partner - similar to Salo - when Salo was healthy through the first half of last season, Edler was exceptionally successful - he struggled down the stretch with revolving partners. I like what Garrison brings in a dual sense as a partner for Edler. I can't say the same about Phaneuf - imo his game isn't strong enough in his own end of the ice - which is why it was questioned widely whether in fact he is actually a better defender than the young, struggling Schenn was. Phaneuf partners primarily with Gunnarson - who is the more responsible defender of the two - Phaneuf essentially needs that - and therefore, not really a good fit in the Canucks existing scheme of things. The Canucks needed a guy with shutdown abilities/responsibility much more - and signed Garrison as a result.

Phaneuf hasn't been a "star" since 2008 - he hasn't been a top 20 blueliner since then (and despite upside, has always had holes in his game). At least in the case of Garrison we are looking at the present - the player he has been over that past two years.
As with any deal, only time will really tell - but Garrison is a very good risk to take (there is risk in every single transaction), given the shutdown aspect of a players game can be counted on for more consistency than the highlight reel.

Seems like King doesn't like/agree with things that go against his arguments.
  • 0

Posted Image


#1263 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:43 PM

Seems like King doesn't like/agree with things that go against his arguments.


By "things" do you mean one guy's opinion? Because that's all it is. There is no statistical/numerical support for Jason Garrison being a better hockey player than Dion Phaneuf. If oldnews thinks he is, good for him. I don't, and I've articulated why. Neither participant is right or wrong.

Does that make sense to you?
  • 0

#1264 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:57 PM

That alone would be quite important to us. We would get a pretty good return if we traded Cory.

Think of it this way:
Lu + Cory's return, will most likely be better than, Cory plus Lu's return

Of course it could go either way, but I think it's more likely this scenario happens.


I fully agree with this statement. Schneider is unproven as a 1G. He might have great numbers as a backup but has not played 70+. The only year Luongo played less games then Schneider was his year with the Islanders (24) in 1999-00.

So far, Schneider has answerd all questions with his play but there is a difference between playing 33, 45, 55, 65 and 75 games in a season and then roll into the playoffs.

At this point, I would rather bet on a fatiqued Luongo then a fatigued Schneider when all cards are on the table.

And yes, Luongo + Schneider returns greatly outweigh Schneider + Luongo returns.

Theoretically, Schneider can be traded to 29 teams of 30 teams as his contract does not require his permission, thereby increasing bidding, whereas Luongo, so far, can be traded to three teams, five if he actually breaks his contract terms and submits a list of five teams, which he is not allowed to do until a specific date.

The Canucks are stuck between two choices regarding Luongo: suck his contract, which in reality is very savvy, or accept a very low return. Whereas with Schneider, they can trade to the highest bidder and there would be high bidders, especially at a trade deadline.

In a sense, by lowballing the Canucks on Luongo, other teams are telling the Canucks a few things:

Why would you trade your franchise goaltender?
We don't want to absorb Luongo's contract.
How about that kid and what would you want for him?

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 18 November 2012 - 01:11 PM.

  • 0

#1265 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,675 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:21 PM

By "things" do you mean one guy's opinion? Because that's all it is. There is no statistical/numerical support for Jason Garrison being a better hockey player than Dion Phaneuf. If oldnews thinks he is, good for him. I don't, and I've articulated why. Neither participant is right or wrong.

Does that make sense to you?

You are 100% correct if you disregard advanced stats because of an unexplained ignorant dismissal.

Otherwise, you're wrong.

Edited by WiDeN, 18 November 2012 - 01:21 PM.

  • 2

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

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


#1266 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,246 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:28 PM

Maybe he gives more of a leash to Bieksa and Edler because he's seen more evidence of them being able to help the team, evidence which has been built up over the period of many years.

Besides, none of your naive excuses take away from the fundamental reality that AV's main objective is to win games. Knowing this, why would he deliberately hold back a player that could allegedly help out the team win games so greatly? You're not thinking rationally, you're thinking as a Canuck/Ballard fan and are denying reality.


Now it is just becoming Trolling.

What proof do you have other than the Points which really is expected from a player playing on the 3rd pair, who is in and out of the line-up and get's no PP time, when he is still a plus player.

You deny the true reality that this past season he has very great moments when given more time. And when he was given the most time and responsability (The playoffs) he was easily our best defensemen.

But these are things you could only pick out if you actually watched him play, which you don't apparently. And as far as im concerned it takes alot of legitmacy out of your argument if you haven't seen his play with your own eyes, and all you are relying on in your argument is that he has very little production under circumstances that don't give much opportunity for anything close good production.

What is there to argue? 14 points in 112 games doesn't need much more of an explanation. I bet even that bum Dion Phaneuf - if he were able to even make the Canucks, that is - would exceed that kind of production.


There's a much more important stat you are missing, +/-

For a player who get's 3rd pair minutes, get's no PP time, is always out on the PK, and apparently doesn't help us win. He is a +10 in his 2 season's here, which is surprisingly close to Edler's +13.

I don't even know if that bum Phaneuf would be able to manage that good of a +/-
  • 0

zackass.png


#1267 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:53 PM

Now it is just becoming Trolling.

What proof do you have other than the Points which really is expected from a player playing on the 3rd pair, who is in and out of the line-up and get's no PP time, when he is still a plus player.

You deny the true reality that this past season he has very great moments when given more time. And when he was given the most time and responsability (The playoffs) he was easily our best defensemen.


"Trolling", huh? And I love the bolded part especially - "other than the points" - :lol:. Well, that's pretty important. 14 points in 112 games, while consuming $4.25M of cap space, is awful.

And I know that your YouTube clip of Keith's hipcheck leads you to believe that a Norris nomination is in his future, but, trust me, "very great moments" happen to everybody. Do you remember Marek Malik's shootout goal a few years ago? Heck, go and watch compilations of Kyle Wellwood from when he was a Leaf. You'd think that you were watching a guy who was one day going to be inducted into the HHOF.

Calling him our best defenceman in the playoffs seems to be something that you thoroughly enjoy bringing up. What are you basing that on? What did he do that differentiated himself so greatly from our other guys? Could it be that your bizarre love for Keith Ballard is clouding your judgment on what took place in reality?

And BTW - who was Pittsburgh's best forward this past playoffs? The answer is nobody cares, because they got swept. No different than us, except that we lasted 1 game longer.

There's a much more important stat you are missing, +/-

For a player who get's 3rd pair minutes, get's no PP time, is always out on the PK, and apparently doesn't help us win. He is a +10 in his 2 season's here, which is surprisingly close to Edler's +13.


+/- is another stat that can be highly misleading. Daniel & Henrik can control the puck for the entire shift, generate a goal themselves, and the rest of the gravy-trainers on the ice get a +1 beside their name. That is not a more important stat than goals and assists, not even close. Far less reliable.

Anyway, this is again a time where it's good to compare this stat to the rest of the team's.

In 2010-11, Ballard's +10 ranked 5th amongst Vancouver's D.

In 2011-12, Ballard's 0 rating tied him with Edler as the second worst rating on their D. Only Aaron Rome, at -4, had a worse rating. That means that there were 6 defenceman on the Canucks with a better +/- than Ballard, 5 if you don't want to count Gragnani. Either way, not a good result, right?

Anything else you've got for support of how Ballard is really an excellent defenceman, who's merely being held back by the coach, even though it would be directly in conflict of the coach's own interest for holding anyone back that could help him win?
  • 0

#1268 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,837 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 04:09 PM

"Trolling", huh? And I love the bolded part especially - "other than the points" - :lol:. Well, that's pretty important. 14 points in 112 games, while consuming $4.25M of cap space, is awful.

And I know that your YouTube clip of Keith's hipcheck leads you to believe that a Norris nomination is in his future, but, trust me, "very great moments" happen to everybody. Do you remember Marek Malik's shootout goal a few years ago? Heck, go and watch compilations of Kyle Wellwood from when he was a Leaf. You'd think that you were watching a guy who was one day going to be inducted into the HHOF.

Calling him our best defenceman in the playoffs seems to be something that you thoroughly enjoy bringing up. What are you basing that on? What did he do that differentiated himself so greatly from our other guys? Could it be that your bizarre love for Keith Ballard is clouding your judgment on what took place in reality?

And BTW - who was Pittsburgh's best forward this past playoffs? The answer is nobody cares, because they got swept. No different than us, except that we lasted 1 game longer.



+/- is another stat that can be highly misleading. Daniel & Henrik can control the puck for the entire shift, generate a goal themselves, and the rest of the gravy-trainers on the ice get a +1 beside their name. That is not a more important stat than goals and assists, not even close. Far less reliable.

Anyway, this is again a time where it's good to compare this stat to the rest of the team's.

In 2010-11, Ballard's +10 ranked 5th amongst Vancouver's D.

In 2011-12, Ballard's 0 rating tied him with Edler as the second worst rating on their D. Only Aaron Rome, at -4, had a worse rating. That means that there were 6 defenceman on the Canucks with a better +/- than Ballard, 5 if you don't want to count Gragnani. Either way, not a good result, right?

Anything else you've got for support of how Ballard is really an excellent defenceman, who's merely being held back by the coach, even though it would be directly in conflict of the coach's own interest for holding anyone back that could help him win?

Pittsburgh didn't get swept btw, they were eliminated in 6. Another point that proves you watch very little hockey.
  • 0
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#1269 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 04:12 PM

You are 100% correct if you disregard advanced stats because of an unexplained ignorant dismissal.

Otherwise, you're wrong.

Exactly, because they go against your "Opinion" you choose to ignore them.
Sounds familiar, I pointed this out to you before.




Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:43 PM


Posted ImageKing of the ES, on 15 November 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

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.
Wait a second!




Wait a second!


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



You can Ignore Brodeur's playoff performance, but we must NEVER forget Paajarvi's rookie season?

Dafuq

"Trolling", huh? And I love the bolded part especially - "other than the points" - :lol:. Well, that's pretty important. 14 points in 112 games, while consuming $4.25M of cap space, is awful.

^ More evidence of you picking and choosing stats that only work for you, and ignoring what doesn't.

Edited by SonGoku23, 18 November 2012 - 04:49 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#1270 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,147 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:21 PM

Anyway, this is again a time where it's good to compare this stat to the rest of the team's.

In 2010-11, Ballard's +10 ranked 5th amongst Vancouver's D.


It's funny you should bring that up.

Phaneuf's +/- was worse than Gardiner, Schenn, Franson, and Gunnarson's.

That would rank him 5th on the "pathetic" Leafs.
  • 1

#1271 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,246 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:24 PM

"Trolling", huh? And I love the bolded part especially - "other than the points" - :lol:. Well, that's pretty important. 14 points in 112 games, while consuming $4.25M of cap space, is awful.

And I know that your YouTube clip of Keith's hipcheck leads you to believe that a Norris nomination is in his future, but, trust me, "very great moments" happen to everybody. Do you remember Marek Malik's shootout goal a few years ago? Heck, go and watch compilations of Kyle Wellwood from when he was a Leaf. You'd think that you were watching a guy who was one day going to be inducted into the HHOF.


My Point is that he is alot better than you give him credit for, your just a troll, your ignorant beyond belief and even if you don't agree with someone, you refuse to even look at things from there point of view.

Not to mention that very very very few people on CDC ever agree with anything you say. If any.

Calling him our best defenceman in the playoffs seems to be something that you thoroughly enjoy bringing up. What are you basing that on? What did he do that differentiated himself so greatly from our other guys? Could it be that your bizarre love for Keith Ballard is clouding your judgment on what took place in reality?


I bring it up almost as much as you bring up his point total's, but not quite as much because I do have more to my opinion than just that, unlike you it seems.

the reason I can say this is because unlike you I actually know enough about hockey to be able to watch and anaylze his play, not to mention I actually went to a game and watched him very closely.

He was great in one on one situations, didn't turn the puck over nearly as much as Edler or Bieksa and other's, made few mistakes, made great plays on the breakout, Never got caught up ice, made great passes and he was very disicpline, only taking 1 penalty in the entire series.

And BTW - who was Pittsburgh's best forward this past playoffs? The answer is nobody cares, because they got swept. No different than us, except that we lasted 1 game longer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk9o1bzN3TI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJqNNhsbAkQ


This just shows how little you actually know about hockey and it just discredits your opinion even more.


+/- is another stat that can be highly misleading. Daniel & Henrik can control the puck for the entire shift, generate a goal themselves, and the rest of the gravy-trainers on the ice get a +1 beside their name. That is not a more important stat than goals and assists, not even close. Far less reliable.


It could be. But in this case im not sure how it's misleading.

Ballard is on the 3rd pair with No powerplay time. Ballard rarley get's time with the twins, and he's never on the PP so how can the Sedin's help his +/-? They can't it's because of his solid defensive play. Not to mention he is on the PK all the time, which usually kills your +/- unless it is balanced out with PP time or playing top minutes with the best players on your team, niether of which Ballard does.

Anyway, this is again a time where it's good to compare this stat to the rest of the team's.

In 2010-11, Ballard's +10 ranked 5th amongst Vancouver's D.

In 2011-12, Ballard's 0 rating tied him with Edler as the second worst rating on their D. Only Aaron Rome, at -4, had a worse rating. That means that there were 6 defenceman on the Canucks with a better +/- than Ballard, 5 if you don't want to count Gragnani. Either way, not a good result, right?


Okay well if you want to seperate his +/- then we could also do the same thing for the points, which is your only arguement.

2010-11: Ballard has 7 Points in 65 Games.

2011-12: Ballard had 7 Points in 47 Games, roughly half a season.

So while you think Ballard hasn't improved at all it seems to me after a shaky 2010-11 season, he rebounded alot better, had some great moments and was our best D-man to close out the 2011-12 campaign, in a series where very few players looked decent at all.


Anything else you've got for support of how Ballard is really an excellent defenceman, who's merely being held back by the coach, even though it would be directly in conflict of the coach's own interest for holding anyone back that could help him win?


Yes actually since I have more than 1 argument.

Ballard is much more valuable on our team, aside from his individual play which is better than you think.

He has great Chemistry with Chris Tanev, which not only makes Ballard better but also Tanev which is something that makes him more valuable to us.

So if we trade him as a cap dumb (even though we can handle his cap hit) what we will get in return won't be nearly as valuable to our team as he is currently.


You should start looking at things from more view than just one like you do, aside from the fact you don't know anything about hockey and how to make judgments on peoples play, you should also look at other factors before you continue reply (or troll) other members with such ignorance.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 18 November 2012 - 05:27 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1272 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:36 PM

Pittsburgh didn't get swept btw, they were eliminated in 6. Another point that proves you watch very little hockey.


No, what it proves is that anyone who loses in the first round is not relevant, and discussions of who the best loser was should not exist.
  • 0

#1273 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:38 PM

It's funny you should bring that up.

Phaneuf's +/- was worse than Gardiner, Schenn, Franson, and Gunnarson's.

That would rank him 5th on the "pathetic" Leafs.


I'm not touting +/- as "the most important stat" like he is.
  • 0

#1274 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:46 PM

My Point is that he is alot better than you give him credit for, your just a troll, your ignorant beyond belief and even if you don't agree with someone, you refuse to even look at things from there point of view.

Not to mention that very very very few people on CDC ever agree with anything you say. If any.

I bring it up almost as much as you bring up his point total's, but not quite as much because I do have more to my opinion than just that, unlike you it seems.

the reason I can say this is because unlike you I actually know enough about hockey to be able to watch and anaylze his play, not to mention I actually went to a game and watched him very closely.


Personal insults, "you know nothing about hockey", weak.

And I'll take hard numbers over "I analyzed him myself" any time.

Ballard is on the 3rd pair with No powerplay time. Ballard rarley get's time with the twins, and he's never on the PP so how can the Sedin's help his +/-? They can't it's because of his solid defensive play. Not to mention he is on the PK all the time, which usually kills your +/- unless it is balanced out with PP time or playing top minutes with the best players on your team, niether of which Ballard does.


For a guy who says that +/- is of such great importance, you might want to figure out how it's computed. It is an even-strength metric, unless you get scored on while you're on the PP, and/or someone on the PK gets a goal. If Daniel Sedin gets a PP goal, for example, his +/- is unaffected. Make sense?

Okay well if you want to seperate his +/- then we could also do the same thing for the points, which is your only arguement.

2010-11: Ballard has 7 Points in 65 Games.

2011-12: Ballard had 7 Points in 47 Games, roughly half a season.

So while you think Ballard hasn't improved at all it seems to me after a shaky 2010-11 season, he rebounded alot better, had some great moments and was our best D-man to close out the 2011-12 campaign, in a series where very few players looked decent at all.


You're really going here? He "rebounded" a lot better? You're again denying reality.

Funny how Lecavalier's so terrible for getting "just" 49 points in 64 games, but Keith Ballard can get 14 in 112 and "you just need to watch him play!"
  • 0

#1275 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,837 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:48 PM

No, what it proves is that anyone who loses in the first round is not relevant, and discussions of who the best loser was should not exist.

Somebody should at least know enough hockey to know how many games/rounds a team lasted in the playoffs, which you clearly don't seem to know.
  • 0
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#1276 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:52 PM

Somebody should at least know enough hockey to know how many games/rounds a team lasted in the playoffs, which you clearly don't seem to know.


No, I just don't care. It would not have been difficult to take 3 seconds to Google the answer, but it was unimportant. The point was that nobody cares who their best forward was, because they were eliminated early.

Edited by King of the ES, 18 November 2012 - 05:53 PM.

  • 0

#1277 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,675 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:02 PM

Personal insults, "you know nothing about hockey", weak.

And I'll take hard numbers over "I analyzed him myself" any time.



For a guy who says that +/- is of such great importance, you might want to figure out how it's computed. It is an even-strength metric, unless you get scored on while you're on the PP, and/or someone on the PK gets a goal. If Daniel Sedin gets a PP goal, for example, his +/- is unaffected. Make sense?



You're really going here? He "rebounded" a lot better? You're again denying reality.

Funny how Lecavalier's so terrible for getting "just" 49 points in 64 games, but Keith Ballard can get 14 in 112 and "you just need to watch him play!"

You really should check out some advanced stats, and try to understand them, cause the corsi and QOC corsi are a much better indicator than +/-.
BTW, does anyone know a good site for advanced stats? The one I found the other day was pretty cumbersome.
  • 0

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

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


#1278 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,246 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

Personal insults, "you know nothing about hockey", weak.

And I'll take hard numbers over "I analyzed him myself" any time.


Well I'm not the only one who see's this, go back and look at threads from the playoffs, in all the negitivity you will see people point out that Ballard was quite good, and many of them too.

And your not really taking into account all the stats plus the circumstances, not to mention you refute all the stats and points I bring up, yet push your stats argument as the arugment you have.


For a guy who says that +/- is of such great importance, you might want to figure out how it's computed. It is an even-strength metric, unless you get scored on while you're on the PP, and/or someone on the PK gets a goal. If Daniel Sedin gets a PP goal, for example, his +/- is unaffected. Make sense?


Unlike you, I admit you got me there.

But either way +10 in his career as a Canuck, for someone you identify as a weakness is pretty good for a 3rd pair dman, it just shows his reliable play and how he's not a weakness.


You're really going here? He "rebounded" a lot better? You're again denying reality.

Funny how Lecavalier's so terrible for getting "just" 49 points in 64 games, but Keith Ballard can get 14 in 112 and "you just need to watch him play!"


same amount of points, in 20 less game's. And you don't think thats an improvement? Even someone who knows nothing about hockey could identify an improvement.

So your comparing a player who gets 1st/2nd line minutes, and 1st PP time, plus is getting paid like a 50 goal/100 Point player to a player on the 3rd pair with no PP time, another terribly unfair comparison for King.


I also love how you didn't even reply to what I said about Tanev and the value of trading him. We can argue all day about what he brings to the team, and regardless of how many people tell you your off in your analogy you will still continue.

So if your not gunna talk about how trading him will make us better, which I would like to hear your take on, then we might aswell just stop arguing about this particular topic, cause we can do it till we are both blue in the face, and we can take up 10 pages, but it won't change either of our stances and it will only piss off people like Elvis, who would like to have meaning full discussion rather than a pissing match.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1279 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:07 PM

You really should check out some advanced stats, and try to understand them, cause the corsi and QOC corsi are a much better indicator than +/-.


What's so difficult to understand? Is it not just shots generated towards the opponents net vs. shots generated towards your net?

Do you not see the clear potential for manipulation? What about the guys who just shoot everything on net, when the smart play would've been to either hold or pass? What about the guys who get credit for shots while not touching the puck at all for the entire shift? 2 of the top 3 Corsi guys in the 2010-11 season were members of the powerhouse Toronto Maple Leafs. Coming in at #5 was none other than Mason Raymond.
  • 0

#1280 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:07 PM

Keith Ballard points

Phoenix: 39, 27, 21
Florida: 34,28
Vancouver: 7, 7

Keith Ballard can get points if he's allowed to play his game. In Vancouver as a third pairing with extremely limited shifts, he cannot. He just... doesn't fit the Canucks. He is playing in a position that could be filled by a $500,000 player. With Garrison coming in, Ballard has even less chance of making the top four.

VAN
Schneider
Edler
Ballard

This package will get any available 1D in the league.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 18 November 2012 - 07:09 PM.

  • 0

#1281 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:16 PM

So your comparing a player who gets 1st/2nd line minutes, and 1st PP time, plus is getting paid like a 50 goal/100 Point player to a player on the 3rd pair with no PP time, another terribly unfair comparison for King.


The Canucks didn't expect him to be on the 3rd pair, when they acquired him. He ended up there. Mike Gillis, you can be sure, was expecting to have acquired a top-4, maybe even a top-2 defenceman that day. Keith has not delivered.

I also love how you didn't even reply to what I said about Tanev and the value of trading him. We can argue all day about what he brings to the team, and regardless of how many people tell you your off in your analogy you will still continue.


What is there to say? I don't think Ballard & Tanev are quite Niedermayer & Pronger, if that's what you're asking. I don't think Chris Tanev would be distraught over Keith Ballard being traded, if that's what you're asking.

So if your not gunna talk about how trading him will make us better, which I would like to hear your take on, then we might aswell just stop arguing about this particular topic, cause we can do it till we are both blue in the face, and we can take up 10 pages, but it won't change either of our stances and it will only piss off people like Elvis, who would like to have meaning full discussion rather than a pissing match.


Trading him would make us better if we got someone back who would give this team more value, relative to cost - meaning, not a lot. Pretty simple and obvious.

Edited by King of the ES, 18 November 2012 - 07:17 PM.

  • 0

#1282 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,837 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

Keith Ballard points

Phoenix: 39, 27, 21
Florida: 34,28
Vancouver: 7, 7

Keith Ballard can get points if he's allowed to play his game. In Vancouver as a third pairing with extremely limited shifts, he cannot. He just... doesn't fit the Canucks. He is playing in a position that could be filled by a $500,000 player. With Garrison coming in, Ballard has even less chance of making the top four.

VAN
Schneider
Edler
Ballard

This package will get any available 1D in the league.

But it would completely destroy our depth defense.

Hamhuis - D man from Schneider trade
Bieksa - Garrison
Tanev - Alberts

Yea...no.
  • 0
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#1283 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,246 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:21 PM

The Canucks didn't expect him to be on the 3rd pair, when they acquired him. He ended up there. Mike Gillis, you can be sure, was expecting to have acquired a top-4, maybe even a top-2 defenceman that day. Keith has not delivered.


I'm not sure what this has to do anything, your side tracking from the original subject to make your argument look better.

Your comparing the stats, of a 1st/2nd line player with 1st unit PP time, with two of the better forwards in the league toa a Defensemen who gets no PP time and plays on the 3rd pair.

Im not sure what expectations have to do with it, both were expected to produce more but the circumstances favour Lecavlier to produce to his potential much more than they do Ballard.

What is there to say? I don't think Ballard & Tanev are quite Niedermayer & Pronger, if that's what you're asking. I don't think Chris Tanev would be distraught over Keith Ballard being traded, if that's what you're asking.


What's a more effective pair? Ballard and Tanev or Alberts and Tanev? Or whatever 3rd pair d-man you can find. The fact that they have very good chemistry makes them both better players, and both more valuable to the team.

This is something you easily brush off, but when you have Defensemen with chemistry like that, it makes your defense so much better. Just look at how our defense has become alot better because of the Bieksa/Hamhuis chemistry, then adding Tanev/Ballard chemistry will only add to the reliability of our defense.

Trading him would make us better if we got someone back who would give this team more value, relative to cost - meaning, not a lot. Pretty simple and obvious.


How would we get someone better in return? His value on this team is alot greater than what it would be if we started shopping him.

What do you expect to get that's better? Not a chance we would get something that would bring as much value to this team as he does.


We should stop arguing about Ballard here though since this is a Luongo thread.

http://forum.canucks...ucks vs kings

Here's a Ballard thread, I made a post in it assessing his value in it on the 1st page, if you want to continue arguing about it, just reply to it and we can continue there. You can tell me if you agree with it or not.

Rather than waste pages here having off-topic arguments.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1284 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:30 PM

But it would completely destroy our depth defense.

Hamhuis - D man from Schneider trade
Bieksa - Garrison
Tanev - Alberts

Yea...no.


PHANEUF - GARRISON
HAMHUIS - BIEKSA
TANEV - RIELLY

LUONGO
  • 0

#1285 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:04 PM

I fully agree with this statement. Schneider is unproven as a 1G. He might have great numbers as a backup but has not played 70+. The only year Luongo played less games then Schneider was his year with the Islanders (24) in 1999-00.

So far, Schneider has answerd all questions with his play but there is a difference between playing 33, 45, 55, 65 and 75 games in a season and then roll into the playoffs.

At this point, I would rather bet on a fatiqued Luongo then a fatigued Schneider when all cards are on the table.

And yes, Luongo + Schneider returns greatly outweigh Schneider + Luongo returns.

Theoretically, Schneider can be traded to 29 teams of 30 teams as his contract does not require his permission, thereby increasing bidding, whereas Luongo, so far, can be traded to three teams, five if he actually breaks his contract terms and submits a list of five teams, which he is not allowed to do until a specific date.

The Canucks are stuck between two choices regarding Luongo: suck his contract, which in reality is very savvy, or accept a very low return. Whereas with Schneider, they can trade to the highest bidder and there would be high bidders, especially at a trade deadline.

In a sense, by lowballing the Canucks on Luongo, other teams are telling the Canucks a few things:

Why would you trade your franchise goaltender?
We don't want to absorb Luongo's contract.
How about that kid and what would you want for him?

Well lets deal with your argumement (1) Schneider will not need to play 70+ games..not realistic in todays NHL (2) Schneider is younger, more efficient in goal and as a result is less likely to be"fatigued" (3) The pressure Schneider has been exposed to is great as a backup...having to backup the "star" goalie, and he has excelled at every opportunity last year (4) a backup does not get the opportunity to learn what shooters are likely to do (5) Schneider's technical, fundamental game is not subject to breakdown as it is engrained in his style. (6) lowballing offers might just mean that other teams do not see the value in our "franchise goalie" (7) it is apparent in the fact that Canucks are prepared to go with your"unproven" goalie is that they see Schneids as a better option...or they would have traded him for the parts you think we need Goaltending is arguably the most important position on the team. Why keep the goalie who gets pulled every 11 games and gives up over .3 goals a game more while facing 1.3 shoots per game less....seems the canucks play worse defense under Schneider by giving up marginally more shots. Keep hoping for a Schneider trade...its your dream !!
  • 1

#1286 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,246 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:09 PM

PHANEUF - GARRISON
HAMHUIS - BIEKSA
TANEV - RIELLY

LUONGO


What's your proposed deal to acquire this defense?
  • 0

zackass.png


#1287 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,837 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:18 PM

What's your proposed deal to acquire this defense?

Phaneuf and Reilly for Schneider, Edler and Ballard. God no.
  • 0
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#1288 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,246 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:24 PM

Phaneuf and Reilly for Schneider, Edler and Ballard. God no.


Edler is just as good if not better than Phaneuf.

Reilly is really good but not at the expense of Schneider and Ballard.

I agree with you.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1289 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,675 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:25 PM

Luongo + Ballard for Phaneuf + Kadri

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Phaneuf - they would punish people, Phaneuf fits the west better imo.
Garrison-Tanev
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1290 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,675 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:34 PM

What's so difficult to understand? Is it not just shots generated towards the opponents net vs. shots generated towards your net?

Do you not see the clear potential for manipulation? What about the guys who just shoot everything on net, when the smart play would've been to either hold or pass? What about the guys who get credit for shots while not touching the puck at all for the entire shift? 2 of the top 3 Corsi guys in the 2010-11 season were members of the powerhouse Toronto Maple Leafs. Coming in at #5 was none other than Mason Raymond.

First of all, your tone could use some improvement.

The Quality of Competition Corsi is better, but it's not intended to tell you everything there is to know about a player. The team shots differential while a player is on the ice is a good stat too. +/- is a good statistic for even strength, but it disregards the differential for guys who specialize on special teams. The GM's are using advanced statistics to try to get more information about a player before they draft or trade for him. If all you look at is G, A, and +/-, then it really doesn't tell the whole story about a player, and neither does advanced stats. But, they are definitely not rubbish.

I would like a better advanced stats site, and possibly a page with better explanations of each one, because I have only limited understanding of them. Had I posted advanced stats that backed your argument up, then I bet you'd be a lot more receptive to them.
  • 0

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

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





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.