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

#1681 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:31 AM

Actually, the Jesus story is the biggest propaganda scheme ever put on paper. Taken by Rome, this pagan figure is the symbol of individualism and resides in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is really a How to Grow Your Fields For Dummies book.

Jesus is? UNPROVEN.

Might as well stick with PROVEN Luongo!

I was being sarcastic, and completely agree.
  • 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


#1682 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:31 AM

Actually, the Jesus story is the biggest propaganda scheme ever put on paper. Taken by Rome, this pagan figure is the symbol of individualism and resides in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is really a How to Grow Your Fields For Dummies book.

Jesus is? UNPROVEN.

Might as well stick with PROVEN Luongo!


Not sure you ought to be poking fun at people's religious beliefs. BTW, the only thing that Luongo has really PROVEN is that he's a good regular season goalie who cant handle playoff pressure with any regularity.
  • 1

#1683 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:34 AM

Not sure you ought to be poking fun at people's religious beliefs. BTW, the only thing that Luongo has really PROVEN is that he's a good regular season goalie who cant handle playoff pressure with any regularity.


This was a ruse.

The axis. (featuring Riviera82, smurf47 and King of the ES)
Vs.
The Allies.

Live on CDC.

"Dare to disagree"

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 29 November 2012 - 12:08 PM.

  • 1

#1684 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:36 AM

You have faith in our GM for rejecting a young defenceman that would likely be a mainstay on our back-end for the next many, many years, yet you're hoping for Nick Bjugstad and Alex Petrovic, both of whom will likely be in the AHL for multiple years, before making the NHL, assuming they ever do?

If what you're saying is true (I haven't heard Botchford's backtrack, but you could well be right), I think it'll wind up being a mistake by Gillis. Schenn offers both immediate help and legitimate upside. It'll be tough to get a deal elsewhere with both of those elements - your proposal, oldnews, doesn't offer immediate help.


It is true King.
Here's another reference from Botchford.
"But if it was going to happen Friday, the Leafs needed to offer an asset better than Luke Schenn to land the expensive, star netminder."

http://www.vanhockey...on-luongo-deal/

He has also conceded elsewhere that Gillis, not Luongo rejected the deal - I've already quoted that for you.

Schenn can't skate King - that's a fairly big weak spot in today's NHL.

My proposal would have helped the Canucks immediately - aside from putting two great prospects in the stable (and I've said this before, my proposal came before the draft - Gaunce may alter the interest in Bjugstad, but I'd still like to see Petrovic as a secondary piece if dealing with Florida) - that proposal puts $5.3 million in cap space in the bank immediately. If you think that doesn't help, think again. It creates room to make other deals - and a lot more flexibility in terms of who you deal with to add a 2nd line RW etc - a guy could be added at the deadline from an also-ran for futures - it gives the Canucks more options in terms of being able to trade young assets and more types of assets to offer - a whole lot of unforeseen possibilities open up (none of which apply during a lockout) - so yeah, it would have helped immediately.
Also, you left out the Upshall part - which satisfies the "cap dump" aspect of sweetening the deal - and who is a hell of a two-way, gritty, versatile forward who can and has played RW - if he's healthy, he's a great asset, if not, his cap hit doesn't apply.

Edited by oldnews, 29 November 2012 - 12:09 PM.

  • 0

#1685 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:09 PM

Not sure you ought to be poking fun at people's religious beliefs. BTW, the only thing that Luongo has really PROVEN is that he's a good regular season goalie who cant handle playoff pressure with any regularity.


Not sure where I poked fun at people's religious beliefs... It is merely my opinion on the matter.

Luongo has proven capable enough to bring a team to a Stanley Cup Final. Unfortunately, by the time the Canucks got there, they were decimated while Boston was relatively injury free. If you cannot get that into your head, that's not my problem.

Not even Detroit, New Jersey or Colorado; the three juggernaughts of the nineties, could recover from their Cup appearances in time to show up on top the next playoff year. L.A. and again New Jersey will suffer the same fate this year; they will barely make it past the second round and that is if they do.

Blame Luongo all you want and ignore the other aspects of the game. It's like saying Moby Dick is a good whale book.

As for the series against L.A., 16-4 should be imprinted in your mind; a rarely seen feat. And even if the Canucks would have won that series, they would have been so smashed up that they wouldn't get too far after that. A team with a difficulty to score in the playoffs and they go in without their leading scorer Daniel? If you want to blame someone, don't blame Luongo; blame Keith.

Resumption of play will hold many surprises; none better than a healthy goaltending controversy. If you cannot handle that, that's not my problem.


Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 29 November 2012 - 12:31 PM.

  • 1

#1686 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

It is true King.
Here's another reference from Botchford.
"But if it was going to happen Friday, the Leafs needed to offer an asset better than Luke Schenn to land the expensive, star netminder."

http://www.vanhockey...on-luongo-deal/

He has also conceded elsewhere that Gillis, not Luongo rejected the deal - I've already quoted that for you.

Schenn can't skate King - that's a fairly big weak spot in today's NHL.

My proposal would have helped the Canucks immediately - aside from putting two great prospects in the stable (and I've said this before, my proposal came before the draft - Gaunce may alter the interest in Bjugstad, but I'd still like to see Petrovic as a secondary piece if dealing with Florida) - that proposal puts $5.3 million in cap space in the bank immediately. If you think that doesn't help, think again. It creates room to make other deals - and a lot more flexibility in terms of who you deal with to add a 2nd line RW etc - a guy could be added at the deadline from an also-ran for futures - it gives the Canucks more options in terms of being able to trade young assets and more types of assets to offer - a whole lot of unforeseen possibilities open up (none of which apply during a lockout) - so yeah, it would have helped immediately.
Also, you left out the Upshall part - which satisfies the "cap dump" aspect of sweetening the deal - and who is a hell of a two-way, gritty, versatile forward who can and has played RW - if he's healthy, he's a great asset, if not, his cap hit doesn't apply.


Lol,,too funny,,this is what you posted on the last page,,but now Botchford word is gold,,did you not post this last page


"Yeah - this has been done before but Botchford didn't lie, he was just wrong - hadn't checked his facts or published the rumour based on a soft source - surprise, not everything the Province publishes has credibility :bigblush:

Anyway Botchford has since backtracked and corrected the rumour - Gillis rejected the Schenn offer, not Luongo. Just one more reason I have faith in our GM - and if you read between the lines, the Schenn offer clearly means that Luongo is worth at least 10 first round picks to them..."

Edited by Get real canuck fans, 29 November 2012 - 12:19 PM.

  • 0

#1687 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:39 PM

Schenn can't skate King - that's a fairly big weak spot in today's NHL.


A lot of d-men of his ilk can't skate. Adam Foote couldn't skate, Willie Mitchell can't skate.

And again, you can't forget his age. He's roughly 3 months older than Cody Hodgson. 10 months older than Jordan Schroeder. It might feel like he's been around forever, but he's still got a long, long career ahead of him. And his numbers have gotten better every year.

My proposal would have helped the Canucks immediately - aside from putting two great prospects in the stable (and I've said this before, my proposal came before the draft - Gaunce may alter the interest in Bjugstad, but I'd still like to see Petrovic as a secondary piece if dealing with Florida) - that proposal puts $5.3 million in cap space in the bank immediately. If you think that doesn't help, think again. It creates room to make other deals - and a lot more flexibility in terms of who you deal with to add a 2nd line RW etc - a guy could be added at the deadline from an also-ran for futures - it gives the Canucks more options in terms of being able to trade young assets and more types of assets to offer - a whole lot of unforeseen possibilities open up (none of which apply during a lockout) - so yeah, it would have helped immediately.
Also, you left out the Upshall part - which satisfies the "cap dump" aspect of sweetening the deal - and who is a hell of a two-way, gritty, versatile forward who can and has played RW - if he's healthy, he's a great asset, if not, his cap hit doesn't apply.


Cap space is an OK benefit, but it does need to be used for it to be a benefit. So it potentially would help us now, but you're gaining roughly the same in cap space with Schenn as you would with Upshall.

And then with Upshall, there's the issue of a guy earning $3.5M likely playing on the bottom six. Not ideal.
  • 0

#1688 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:56 PM

A lot of d-men of his ilk can't skate. Adam Foote couldn't skate, Willie Mitchell can't skate.

And again, you can't forget his age. He's roughly 3 months older than Cody Hodgson. 10 months older than Jordan Schroeder. It might feel like he's been around forever, but he's still got a long, long career ahead of him. And his numbers have gotten better every year.



Cap space is an OK benefit, but it does need to be used for it to be a benefit. So it potentially would help us now, but you're gaining roughly the same in cap space with Schenn as you would with Upshall.

And then with Upshall, there's the issue of a guy earning $3.5M likely playing on the bottom six. Not ideal.


It is guys like Upshall playing bottom six that allow the top six to function properly as they attract their share of attention.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 29 November 2012 - 12:56 PM.

  • 1

#1689 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:03 PM

This was a ruse.

The axis. (featuring Riviera82, smurf47 and King of the ES)
Vs.
The Allies.

Live on CDC.

"Dare to disagree"

not that we are wrong...just that its not what you want to hear. Fact remains, Canucks brass are trading Lou because they must feel that Schneider is a better option. Deny that !!
  • 1

#1690 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:12 PM

A lot of d-men of his ilk can't skate. Adam Foote couldn't skate, Willie Mitchell can't skate.

And again, you can't forget his age. He's roughly 3 months older than Cody Hodgson. 10 months older than Jordan Schroeder. It might feel like he's been around forever, but he's still got a long, long career ahead of him. And his numbers have gotten better every year.



Cap space is an OK benefit, but it does need to be used for it to be a benefit. So it potentially would help us now, but you're gaining roughly the same in cap space with Schenn as you would with Upshall.

And then with Upshall, there's the issue of a guy earning $3.5M likely playing on the bottom six. Not ideal.

If he makes our 3rd line dangerous and functional, then I have absolutely no problem with that at all. As someone else said, it's guys like Upshall playing in the bottom 6 that allows the top6 to do what it's supposed to do. Also, assuming he would have some time on special teams, he would be earning his salary there too.

not that we are wrong...just that its not what you want to hear. Fact remains, Canucks brass are trading Lou because they must feel that Schneider is a better option. Deny that !!

I agree with that statement, and I agree with Canucks brass in that assessment. I was under the impression that King acknowledges this fact, but disagrees with management.
  • 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


#1691 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:30 PM

If he makes our 3rd line dangerous and functional, then I have absolutely no problem with that at all. As someone else said, it's guys like Upshall playing in the bottom 6 that allows the top6 to do what it's supposed to do. Also, assuming he would have some time on special teams, he would be earning his salary there too.

I agree with that statement, and I agree with Canucks brass in that assessment. I was under the impression that King acknowledges this fact, but disagrees with management.

Its hard for a lot of people to lose Lou, and thats easily understood, but, it appears we are having a changing of the guard in net. I believe Schneider is the way to go but there is no guarentee he will succeed. He is a calculated risk but based on positive input.
  • 1

#1692 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,224 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:38 PM

You have faith in our GM for rejecting a young defenceman that would likely be a mainstay on our back-end for the next many, many years, yet you're hoping for Nick Bjugstad and Alex Petrovic, both of whom will likely be in the AHL for multiple years, before making the NHL, assuming they ever do?


I would choose Petrovic and Bjugstad over Schenn everyday of the week.

Schenn just isn't what people expected him to be at this point.

The alternative is sitting around at home and trying to find things to do. I bet he'd even prefer to play NHL hockey for free.



Actually the alternative for him is spending time with his family, playing with his kids and watching them grow up, something he doesn't get to do alot of currently with all the travel and training.

Then aside from that he can play poker in more big tournaments, and overall just enjoying the benefits of living in Florida and having Millions and Millions and Millions of dollars.

He's played 12 games in the NHL, has a losing record, and pretty bad numbers overall. He hasn't "earned" anything. He's had a couple of good seasons in the AHL - as a backup - which does not translate to being NHL ready. TML will either want to go in an entirely new direction - Luongo - or they'll want to acquire another veteran goaltender to mentor Reimer as the backup.


Well according to Brian Burke he has. So I trust what he says over either of our personal opinions.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1693 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:39 PM

Its hard for a lot of people to lose Lou, and thats easily understood, but, it appears we are having a changing of the guard in net. I believe Schneider is the way to go but there is no guarentee he will succeed. He is a calculated risk but based on positive input.


Now smurf47, you have impressed me. By referring to uncertainty, you are effectively recognizing the risk. Good work in assessing both sides of the equation with few words.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 29 November 2012 - 04:40 PM.

  • 0

#1694 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:22 PM

If he makes our 3rd line dangerous and functional, then I have absolutely no problem with that at all. As someone else said, it's guys like Upshall playing in the bottom 6 that allows the top6 to do what it's supposed to do. Also, assuming he would have some time on special teams, he would be earning his salary there too.


If guys like that are so valuable, why do we keep getting rid of them?

Hodgson, Wellwood, Bernier, Grabner, Torres...

Edited by King of the ES, 29 November 2012 - 06:23 PM.

  • 0

#1695 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:26 PM

Well according to Brian Burke he has. So I trust what he says over either of our personal opinions.


...when it suits your argument, you trust him, yes.

He's said many times that he "doesn't do" lifetime contracts. But he must just be posturing, in those instances, because it's Roberto freakin' Luongo, right?

:bigblush:
  • 0

#1696 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:28 PM

Now smurf47, you have impressed me. By referring to uncertainty, you are effectively recognizing the risk. Good work in assessing both sides of the equation with few words.


Yeah, what a revelation...

The risk is obvious and apparent, which is why I've said all along that Gillis messed up by not trading Schneider at some point along the way.
  • 0

#1697 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,224 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:38 PM

...when it suits your argument, you trust him, yes.

He's said many times that he "doesn't do" lifetime contracts. But he must just be posturing, in those instances, because it's Roberto freakin' Luongo, right?

:bigblush:


Actually in this case I base my point off what he said, if he didn't then personally I might question it too.

And I'm not sure what your point is with the 2nd part.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 29 November 2012 - 06:38 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1698 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:39 PM

Yeah, what a revelation...

The risk is obvious and apparent, which is why I've said all along that Gillis messed up by not trading Schneider at some point along the way.


Gillis didn't mess up; he was patient. Now he has two bonafide goaltenders; riches the rest of the league salivate at. Either goaltender might be traded and that, for a hefty ransom. The only quality required is patience. Best case scenario, both goaltenders play lights out, making it more difficult for Gillis to make a move. In Larsheid's own words; "it is a nice problem to have".

To me, if a goaltender is to be moved, it will be to the highest bidder at te trade deadline.
  • 1

#1699 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:13 PM

Not sure where I poked fun at people's religious beliefs... It is merely my opinion on the matter.

Luongo has proven capable enough to bring a team to a Stanley Cup Final. Unfortunately, by the time the Canucks got there, they were decimated while Boston was relatively injury free. If you cannot get that into your head, that's not my problem.

Not even Detroit, New Jersey or Colorado; the three juggernaughts of the nineties, could recover from their Cup appearances in time to show up on top the next playoff year. L.A. and again New Jersey will suffer the same fate this year; they will barely make it past the second round and that is if they do.

Blame Luongo all you want and ignore the other aspects of the game. It's like saying Moby Dick is a good whale book.

As for the series against L.A., 16-4 should be imprinted in your mind; a rarely seen feat. And even if the Canucks would have won that series, they would have been so smashed up that they wouldn't get too far after that. A team with a difficulty to score in the playoffs and they go in without their leading scorer Daniel? If you want to blame someone, don't blame Luongo; blame Keith.

Resumption of play will hold many surprises; none better than a healthy goaltending controversy. If you cannot handle that, that's not my problem.


So has Micheal Leighton, Antii Niemi, Ray Emery, and Dwayne Roloson to name a few other notables. The big difference is that Luongo "brought" a President's Trophy winning team to the Stanley Cup Final and stumbled against Chicago for a 3rd year in a row before getting embarrassed by Boston.
You make it sound like his inconsistency was only a one-year occurence.

As for the 3 juggernauts you mentioned.
Detroit 1995 - 1998, SCF appearance, CF appearance, Cup win, Cup win.
Colorado 1996 - 2002, 2 Cup wins and no less than a CF appearance (except for 1998).
New Jersey 2000 - 2003, 3 SCF appearances and 2 Cup wins.

For you to say these teams were 'one and done' is rather foolish. Not only that but I didn't really argue the point before. I didn't expect too much from the Canucks 2012 playoff.
  • 1

#1700 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:30 PM

If guys like that are so valuable, why do we keep getting rid of them?

Hodgson, Wellwood, Bernier, Grabner, Torres...

Only Torres plays a similar game to Upshall.

Wellwood was super streaky, and contributed almost nothing other than faceoffs when he wasn't scoring. He was replaced by Malholtra. Upgrade?

Bernier REALLY didn't contribute anything, because he didn't pan out to what we expected. Even though he made it to the finals with NJ, he wasn't a huge factor for them, and we would have had to wait 3 (4?) more seasons to get that type of contribution out of him.

Grabner, I was sad to see go, but he was slated as a top 6 guy anyway. As I said, he doesn't play the 3rd line roll like Upshall does.

Hodgson, well, I won't get in to that, but he isn't exactly comparable to Upshall.



Upshall brings a physical presence, and can play on any line if necessary. He kills penalties, and can play in front of the net on the 2nd PP unit. He would be worth 3.5M if we had the space in my opinion. You are not required to agree.
  • 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


#1701 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:35 PM

Yeah, what a revelation...

The risk is obvious and apparent, which is why I've said all along that Gillis messed up by not trading Schneider at some point along the way.

Thats where you run off the rails ES !!! The team has opted for the better risk . Gillis has NOT messed up, he is keeping the #1 player, the goalie, and whether you can admit it to yourself, thats Schneider.Is there risk? Of course, but its a calculated by better hockey minds than yours !!
  • 1

#1702 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:38 PM

Gillis didn't mess up; he was patient. Now he has two bonafide goaltenders; riches the rest of the league salivate at. Either goaltender might be traded and that, for a hefty ransom. The only quality required is patience. Best case scenario, both goaltenders play lights out, making it more difficult for Gillis to make a move. In Larsheid's own words; "it is a nice problem to have".

To me, if a goaltender is to be moved, it will be to the highest bidder at te trade deadline.

and its not Schneider !!! There are no rumours of Schneider being traded, so, wake up and smell the coffee !!
  • 1

#1703 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:43 PM

Lol,,too funny,,this is what you posted on the last page,,but now Botchford word is gold,,did you not post this last page


"Yeah - this has been done before but Botchford didn't lie, he was just wrong - hadn't checked his facts or published the rumour based on a soft source - surprise, not everything the Province publishes has credibility :bigblush:

Anyway Botchford has since backtracked and corrected the rumour - Gillis rejected the Schenn offer, not Luongo. Just one more reason I have faith in our GM - and if you read between the lines, the Schenn offer clearly means that Luongo is worth at least 10 first round picks to them..."


You missed the point.

To repeat:
oldnews - Botchford backtracked on claim that Luongo vetoed Toronto deal.
King - "If what you're saying is true (I haven't heard Botchford's backtrack..."
oldnews - "It is true" - that Botchford backtracked on his claim - in fact here's a reference.

Not sure where you get that "now Botchford's word is gold" thing from..."lol, too funny" = miss.

Nothing I read in the Province is "gold". Lots of people not named Botchford were of the opinion that Gillis, not Luongo rejected that deal - and apparently, in the end, that was what happened, and even Botchford acknowledged it.

Edited by oldnews, 29 November 2012 - 09:27 PM.

  • 0

#1704 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:44 PM

A lot of d-men of his ilk can't skate. Adam Foote couldn't skate, Willie Mitchell can't skate.

And again, you can't forget his age. He's roughly 3 months older than Cody Hodgson. 10 months older than Jordan Schroeder. It might feel like he's been around forever, but he's still got a long, long career ahead of him. And his numbers have gotten better every year.



Cap space is an OK benefit, but it does need to be used for it to be a benefit. So it potentially would help us now, but you're gaining roughly the same in cap space with Schenn as you would with Upshall.

And then with Upshall, there's the issue of a guy earning $3.5M likely playing on the bottom six. Not ideal.


Except Upshall is the third part of a package whereas Schenn is not sufficient value in a hockey trade for Luongo.
  • 0

#1705 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:48 PM

If guys like that are so valuable, why do we keep getting rid of them?

Hodgson, Wellwood, Bernier, Grabner, Torres...


That is a really odd grab bag of unrelated types of players you have lumped there - and none of those guys have the two way, versatile game that Upshall does.
  • 1

#1706 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:17 PM

That is a really odd grab bag of unrelated types of players you have lumped there - and none of those guys have the two way, versatile game that Upshall does.

Precisely. None are really comparable. Put Upshall in that list, and give 30 GM's a choice of one player. You'd get 30 teams choosing Upshall.
  • 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


#1707 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,982 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:44 PM

http://www.sportsnet...rsary/?site=www

Burke's statement that his teams are built from the goaltender out has been his biggest problem. He has to be going hard after Lu, a proven goaltender. The Canucks need to get a very good player back, not another role player.
Lu and whatever for Rielly, Kessel or Gardiner


Mark Spector Sports Net
Four years into Brian Burke's reign atop the Toronto Maple Leafs, the question is not, "Has Burke lived up to the expectations of Maple Leafs fans?"

The question is perhaps better put, "Has Brian Burke lived up to his own promises?"

Judge him not, Leafs fan, on what you hoped he might accomplish. Judge your GM on what he said he'd do, and you can decide for yourself if, after four years at the helm, this ship is being steered to your liking.

Are the Leafs built "from the net out," the way Burke said he always constructed his teams? Or after four years do we look at James Reimer and Ben Scrivens and see two question marks in goal?

Do you look at Burke's defensive corps, with a couple of nice players (Dion Phaneuf, Jake Gardiner) but still plenty of over-priced, middling talent (John-Michael Liles, Mike Komisarek) and say, "Meh." After four seasons, is that plank in Burke's plan more of a finished product, or still a work in progress?

Toronto, Burke promised all along, would be big, and of course truculent.

Well? We're four years in. Are they either?

And what of the rebuild? Burke was the first to promise that this would not be the traditional, Edmonton-like rebuild, where a franchise bottomed out and collected No. 1 draft picks. Slowly building a winner through draft and development, while losing all the way.

Are today's Leafs much different than Edmonton? If so, how?

So, let's take stock: after four years out of the playoffs, was this rebuild really expedited? Is Toronto even a better team today than the Edmontons, the Floridas, the Colorados, or any of the other clubs who have been rebuilding concurrently with the Leafs?

Taking stock on the fourth anniversary of his hire, it seems Burke's biggest problems have been created by his own bravado. And don't get us wrong - we love bravado.

He has had the courage to tell us what he was planning to accomplish, eschewing the "under-promise and over-deliver" credo that others follow. Burke's only problems have come when he has failed to live up to his own standards.

Like the time he stated that, in order to part with defenceman Tomas Kaberle in trade, "It has to be a package just like I paid when I got Chris Pronger from Edmonton."

That package brought Joffrey Lupul, Ladislav Smid, two first round picks and a second rounder to the Oilers, back in 2006.

Two years later after that statement, when Burke finally unloaded Kaberle to Boston, the return was Joe Colborne, a first-round pick and a second-rounder. Burke dealt the first-rounder away (for the promising Tyler Biggs) and the second round pick as well.

Colborne might one day be good, but he likely won't be Jordan Eberle, whom the Oilers drafted with one of their picks from the Pronger trade.

So that Pronger-like promise is perhaps a metaphor for Burke's tenure, a deal that was oversold from the start, and couldn't possibly live up to the hype.

Now, we are four years into a non-traditional (read: faster) rebuild, and fans look at the Maple Leafs and think. "Is this it?"

Today, the Leafs have a farm team that has been seriously shored up, yes. But isn't that a tenet of a patent, traditional rebuild?

They've got some prospects, but the Marlies leading scorer is a 34-year-old, 5-foot-9 journeyman named Keith Aucoin. In his third year of pro hockey, Nazem Kadri has 15 points in 17 Marlies games, but as time passes, Burke's initial first-round draft pick (seventh overall in 2009) has not yet been labeled as an impact player in the NHL by any scout or hockey executive we've spoken to.

Today, as the league and its players' association announce that mediation was unsuccessful, taking one step closer to the cancelation of the 2012-13 season, such a result likely wouldn't be bad for Burke's Leafs.

Their prospects will get one more year of seasoning, there are no brash promises to be made during a lockout, and perhaps when the trading ban is lifted and the game resumes, Burke will pull off that long-rumoured deal for goaltender Roberto Luongo.

Then, nearing five years into his tenure, the plan can begin in earnest.

From the goal out.

Mark Spector is the senior columnist on sportsnet.ca

Edited by sampy, 29 November 2012 - 09:47 PM.

  • 1

#1708 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:44 PM

Precisely. None are really comparable. Put Upshall in that list, and give 30 GM's a choice of one player. You'd get 30 teams choosing Upshall.


I'd take the risk on him any day. His last four years before going to Florida - 8 goals in 19 games, 18 in 49, 16 in 61, 6 in 21 games - he clearly has scoring touch in addition to speed, grit, and can play in his own end of the ice. His downside - very injury prone - but if he comes to Vancouver and is injured, his cap hit doesn't apply, so (aside from salary which hasn't been much of an issue to this ownership) where really is the risk?
  • 0

#1709 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,224 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:47 PM

Precisely. None are really comparable. Put Upshall in that list, and give 30 GM's a choice of one player. You'd get 30 teams choosing Upshall.


Honestly I would choose Grabner over Upshall.

He was streaky this season, but he is a capable 2nd liner and the speed makes him more rare than just average 2nd liner.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1710 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:16 PM

http://www.sportsnet...rsary/?site=www

Burke's statement that his teams are built from the goaltender out has been his biggest problem. He has to be going hard after Lu, a proven goaltender. The Canucks need to get a very good player back, not another role player.
Lu and whatever for Rielly, Kessel or Gardiner


Mark Spector Sports Net
Four years into Brian Burke's reign atop the Toronto Maple Leafs, the question is not, "Has Burke lived up to the expectations of Maple Leafs fans?"

The question is perhaps better put, "Has Brian Burke lived up to his own promises?"

Judge him not, Leafs fan, on what you hoped he might accomplish. Judge your GM on what he said he'd do, and you can decide for yourself if, after four years at the helm, this ship is being steered to your liking.

Are the Leafs built "from the net out," the way Burke said he always constructed his teams? Or after four years do we look at James Reimer and Ben Scrivens and see two question marks in goal?

Do you look at Burke's defensive corps, with a couple of nice players (Dion Phaneuf, Jake Gardiner) but still plenty of over-priced, middling talent (John-Michael Liles, Mike Komisarek) and say, "Meh." After four seasons, is that plank in Burke's plan more of a finished product, or still a work in progress?

Toronto, Burke promised all along, would be big, and of course truculent.

Well? We're four years in. Are they either?

And what of the rebuild? Burke was the first to promise that this would not be the traditional, Edmonton-like rebuild, where a franchise bottomed out and collected No. 1 draft picks. Slowly building a winner through draft and development, while losing all the way.

Are today's Leafs much different than Edmonton? If so, how?

So, let's take stock: after four years out of the playoffs, was this rebuild really expedited? Is Toronto even a better team today than the Edmontons, the Floridas, the Colorados, or any of the other clubs who have been rebuilding concurrently with the Leafs?

Taking stock on the fourth anniversary of his hire, it seems Burke's biggest problems have been created by his own bravado. And don't get us wrong - we love bravado.

He has had the courage to tell us what he was planning to accomplish, eschewing the "under-promise and over-deliver" credo that others follow. Burke's only problems have come when he has failed to live up to his own standards.

Like the time he stated that, in order to part with defenceman Tomas Kaberle in trade, "It has to be a package just like I paid when I got Chris Pronger from Edmonton."

That package brought Joffrey Lupul, Ladislav Smid, two first round picks and a second rounder to the Oilers, back in 2006.

Two years later after that statement, when Burke finally unloaded Kaberle to Boston, the return was Joe Colborne, a first-round pick and a second-rounder. Burke dealt the first-rounder away (for the promising Tyler Biggs) and the second round pick as well.

Colborne might one day be good, but he likely won't be Jordan Eberle, whom the Oilers drafted with one of their picks from the Pronger trade.

So that Pronger-like promise is perhaps a metaphor for Burke's tenure, a deal that was oversold from the start, and couldn't possibly live up to the hype.

Now, we are four years into a non-traditional (read: faster) rebuild, and fans look at the Maple Leafs and think. "Is this it?"

Today, the Leafs have a farm team that has been seriously shored up, yes. But isn't that a tenet of a patent, traditional rebuild?

They've got some prospects, but the Marlies leading scorer is a 34-year-old, 5-foot-9 journeyman named Keith Aucoin. In his third year of pro hockey, Nazem Kadri has 15 points in 17 Marlies games, but as time passes, Burke's initial first-round draft pick (seventh overall in 2009) has not yet been labeled as an impact player in the NHL by any scout or hockey executive we've spoken to.

Today, as the league and its players' association announce that mediation was unsuccessful, taking one step closer to the cancelation of the 2012-13 season, such a result likely wouldn't be bad for Burke's Leafs.

Their prospects will get one more year of seasoning, there are no brash promises to be made during a lockout, and perhaps when the trading ban is lifted and the game resumes, Burke will pull off that long-rumoured deal for goaltender Roberto Luongo.

Then, nearing five years into his tenure, the plan can begin in earnest.

From the goal out.

Mark Spector is the senior columnist on sportsnet.ca


I always love a good run at the Leafs - but did Burke actually say he "always" build his teams "from the goaltender out"?

Can't really imagine those words coming out of his mouth.

Maybe true in Anaheim - but he inherited Giguere and Bryzgalov...
In Vancouver, most of us have long enough memories to recall that his tenure was a neverending search for a goaltender - ended when Nonis acquired Luongo.

But if Burke said that he "always" buillds his team that way, it would be news. I'd prefer a quote from Spector - I think what he actually said was that when he got to Toronto he started the rebuild from the goal out - whether successfully or not is another issue - Gustafsson, Giguere, Toskala, Reimer, Scrivens, Rynnas, Owuya,...he just never finished...

Better pony up - and it'll have to be a deal like the one for Kaberle or Pronger!!!
  • 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.