RUPERTKBD Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 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 !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Call me crazy, but I think the better option for this team, at this stage, would have been to stick with the ol' reliable Luongo, and trade the high potential but fairly unproven young guy for immediate help that might push them over the top - IE, win a Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Grabner does have a slight edge where points are concerned - his career .54 points/game is slightly higher than Upshall's .46 - but aside from that, I don't think Grabner brings anywhere near as much to a team - he is a small, not particularly physical RW - his 47 career hits do not impress - and if he can't cut the top 6....(which may also be his fate on the Isles, where Parenteau and Okposo are muscling him out...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 VAN Grabner BKL Ballard Would you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Ol' reliable Luongo hasn't been terribly reliable in the playoffs in case you forgot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 You may be correct here King, but the fact is, Burke has a history of saying one thing and doing another (remember how Wilson's job was safe?) Mike Gillis does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Taking Upshall over Hodgson, eh? And my point in bringing up those guys is that they generate offense. Not sure how "being a two-way player" assists in helping the top two lines do what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 How do you know that Schneider won't even be less reliable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Call me crazy, but I think the better option for this team, at this stage, would have been to stick with the ol' reliable Luongo, and trade the high potential but fairly unproven young guy for immediate help that might push them over the top - IE, win a Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Bernier and Torres generating offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 But Canucks management are prepared to take the risk. There is no downside to this as Lou did not get them the holy grail due , in part, to his lack of consistancy game to game. They must feel that Schneider is the better option. If he fails in the playoffs, its no worse a result than what Lou has done. Same result, no Cup. My bets are on Schneider, he has proven to be very consistant. We know how you feel ES and sympathize, but its time to get on the Canuck bus and off the ES bicycle ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Regular season Moneyball schemes do not translate in Playoff success; I think we're all aware of this by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 What exactly is the "Moneyball scheme" that the Canucks are currently employing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Picking as many mediocre good value players that you can in order to maximize the whole. That's why we have 18 second/third liners and 3 legitimate top 6. I for one don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 So who are you calling an 'illegitimate top 6' - Kesler or Burrows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Burrows is really a third liner until he proves he can contribute without the dynamic duo. Not that he can't he just hasn't yet. I guess he could do it but if you take out the Sedins a top 6 with Burrows, Kelser, Booth, and Higgins looks pretty weak to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.