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

#2911 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:05 AM

Combined, the Luongo trade threads are now 322 pages; 322 pages of pure passion from fans about the best goaltender to play for the Canucks.

I'd say he's staying and fans, media and the organization will work it out.
  • 0

#2912 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:12 AM

I agree with the King on this one.

Phanuef is much more of an impact player, whether its a big hit or a big goal, he is a momentum changer.

Hamhuis is a stabelizer. A steady player who maintains and evens out, but will not necessarily change the coarse of a game. Instead, he helps that game changer become more effective.

Both players are effective, but Phaneuf is a rarer commodity, and I dont think there would be many GMs in the league to take Hamhuis over Phaneuf, as Hamhius' role would be easier to replace.


Would you rather have Marc Stall or PK Subban? Gary Suter or Shea Weber?


Also agre with King. Once fans take out their homer glasses, they'll agree with you too.

Very well said: Phaneuf is an impact player while Hamhuis is a stabilizer.

This is why I believe Hamhuis is not a 1D but a 2D; 1Ds change the game on a dime. None of the Canucks defensemen do so.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 01 January 2013 - 11:15 AM.

  • 1

#2913 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,668 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:50 AM

You don't build a team based on one year stats. Like the stock market, one studies a particular company for its 10 year record. Again and again, I think I understand what you're saying since that's all you're saying: last year's stats are sub par. Yes. I understand. Last year's stats are sub par. Sub par, are last year's stats. I do understand this. Thanks to you Smurf47, who keeps mentioning it every three post you post.

There is no guarantee in Schneider whereas there is a guarantee with Luongo; the Canucks make the playoffs.

Despite your forty years experience in the technicality of goaltending, you seem to have forgotten the revolving door of the 80's, 90's and early 00's regarding goaltending.


What is your theory regarding Luongo's playoff stats? Those have been mediocre every year after 2007.
There is also no guarantee with Luongo. We didn't make the playoffs in 2008 and we weren't even that close. Why was he not able to put the Panthers on his back even just one time and bring them to the playoffs in all the years he was there? No guarantees.
  • 0

#2914 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,461 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 12:13 PM

Also agre with King. Once fans take out their homer glasses, they'll agree with you too.

Very well said: Phaneuf is an impact player while Hamhuis is a stabilizer.

This is why I believe Hamhuis is not a 1D but a 2D; 1Ds change the game on a dime. None of the Canucks defensemen do so.


I'm holding out until Mr Reputable has spoken. King and 101 are authorities, but Mr Rep would seal the deal.
  • 3

#2915 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 12:35 PM

What is your theory regarding Luongo's playoff stats? Those have been mediocre every year after 2007.
There is also no guarantee with Luongo. We didn't make the playoffs in 2008 and we weren't even that close. Why was he not able to put the Panthers on his back even just one time and bring them to the playoffs in all the years he was there? No guarantees.

What is your theory regarding Luongo's playoff stats? Those have been mediocre every year after 2007.
There is also no guarantee with Luongo. We didn't make the playoffs in 2008 and we weren't even that close. Why was he not able to put the Panthers on his back even just one time and bring them to the playoffs in all the years he was there? No guarantees.

Theres a big difference between wishing and thinking. 101 does a lot of wishing and not near enough thinking to be taken seriously about Luongo. He has never responded to the slam on Lou during the playoffs ! Disregards both the facts and the results.
  • 1

#2916 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 12:41 PM

What is your theory regarding Luongo's playoff stats? Those have been mediocre every year after 2007.
There is also no guarantee with Luongo. We didn't make the playoffs in 2008 and we weren't even that close. Why was he not able to put the Panthers on his back even just one time and bring them to the playoffs in all the years he was there? No guarantees.


I believe that the problem with Luongo's playoff stats is not Luongo himself but the type of leadership the Canucks have gotten themselves with. If you put a Linden-type player at the helm, we're talking a very different story. But the Canucks captain is a soft, family-oriented Sweede who gets walked over by whoever is a little dirty and sometimes outright nasty.

Henrik is tough, yes, but he has not one mean bone in his body. He plays with honor and fairness. Ask Chicago, Boston and L.A. about fairness. Toews inspire, as do Chara and Brown. If one abides by the show instead of tell rule, Henrik's constant lack of leadership in terms of nasty, in your face play, to me, far outweighs a bad Luongo goal which comes from time to time.

some will say, well Henrik isn't that type of player. That's right; he isn't that type of player. He isn't the type of Captain, leader and motivator that wins a Stanley Cup.

Blame Luongo all you want.

For you Smurf47, which you never even asked me about Luongo's playoff stats; lack of toughness, lack of scoring, lack of leadership, lack of a 1D, lack of grit, all for the sake of finesse hockey which seldom wins Cup, are all problems far greater in importance than Luongo's perceived inability to be consistent. If the team isn't consistent, how can one isolate the goaltender as the culprit is beyond me.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 01 January 2013 - 01:29 PM.

  • 0

#2917 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 01:01 PM

Theres a big difference between wishing and thinking. 101 does a lot of wishing and not near enough thinking to be taken seriously about Luongo. He has never responded to the slam on Lou during the playoffs ! Disregards both the facts and the results.


Do you want to go through what facts and results are again Smurf47? Did we not go through that already?

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 01 January 2013 - 02:20 PM.

  • 0

#2918 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:13 PM

I agree with the King on this one.

Phanuef is much more of an impact player, whether its a big hit or a big goal, he is a momentum changer.

Hamhuis is a stabelizer. A steady player who maintains and evens out, but will not necessarily change the coarse of a game. Instead, he helps that game changer become more effective.

Both players are effective, but Phaneuf is a rarer commodity, and I dont think there would be many GMs in the league to take Hamhuis over Phaneuf, as Hamhius' role would be easier to replace.


Would you rather have Marc Stall or PK Subban? Gary Suter or Shea Weber?


The problem with Phaneuf is he creates as much negative momentum as he does positive momentum.

And also you don't rely on your #1 defensemen to be a momentum changer, that can be left to the bottom 6 forwards or ever top 6 forwards, you rely on your #1 defensemen to play in everysituation, play well and make the right plays. Someone you can count on to do the right thing when the game matters the most.

And that means Hamhuis > Phaneuf.
  • 1

zackass.png


#2919 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:21 PM

The problem with Phaneuf is he creates as much negative momentum as he does positive momentum.

And also you don't rely on your #1 defensemen to be a momentum changer, that can be left to the bottom 6 forwards or ever top 6 forwards, you rely on your #1 defensemen to play in everysituation, play well and make the right plays. Someone you can count on to do the right thing when the game matters the most.

And that means Hamhuis > Phaneuf.


A team should count on everyone to be momentum changers at one time or another, whether it be your top notch goaltender with a great save, a bottom 6 with a great hit or your 1D with a great rush. Of no matter.

Hamhuis > Phaneuf = homer glasses.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 01 January 2013 - 04:22 PM.

  • 0

#2920 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,757 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

Combined, the Luongo trade threads are now 322 pages; 322 pages of pure passion from fans about the best goaltender to play for the Canucks.

I'd say he's staying and fans, media and the organization will work it out.

Because the number of pages in discussion threads on a message forum determine that Luongo is staying and Schneider is being traded...brilliant logic :picard:
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#2921 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

I'm holding out until Mr Reputable has spoken. King and 101 are authorities, but Mr Rep would seal the deal.

I think BuretoMogilny would also add an amusing and "uber-authoritative" reply.
  • 1
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#2922 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:37 PM

Hamhuis is a good defenceman, he's not Team Canada material at the Olympic level. You could make the argument that he's anywhere between the 1 - 3 defenceman on the Vancouver Canucks. "Reliable in every situation" makes you a well-rounded player - Aaron Rome was also reliable in every situation - it does not make you an Olympian.

He's not better than Dion Phaneuf. Look at their careers. Dion Phaneuf is also the captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Laugh at that all you want, it means something. Oldnews - the self-professed "homer" - is kidding himself if he thinks Phaneuf would actually be Vancouver's 5th defenceman, an utterly ridiculous notion.


Brilliant comparison, Aaron Rome was decent not reliable in sheltered situations, he had a ton of bad games (Sounds like Phaneuf) And that's Something Hamhuis doesn't have.

As for Hamhuis making the Olympics I agree he probably won't make the team, but he will most likely be invited to the camp, and if they have a bunch of risky guys and they needs someone they can rely on he would be the clear choice.

Hamhuis is easily the #1 on this team, if you watch every game I don't know how you could make the argument he isn't, if you don't watch and have no problem going on and on about things you know nothing about then I could see an attempt at one.

Now let's compare Phanuef and Hamhuis.

- Phaneuf is a - player in 3 of the last 4 seasons, and is a combined -22 in that span, and just in his time in Toronto he is a -14 and has been a minus player each year. Phaneuf is a career +5.

- Hamhuis is + player, in his time in Vancouver he is +58 and he is a career +61. Points wise he had 37 Points last year in his first full season in Vancouver, which is only 7 Points less than Dion in the same time, and judging by the fact that Dion has much better offensive tools and is the go to guy on their 1st PP, and Hamhuis is a 2nd unit guy (Which doesn't get much time) that's pretty good.

Consistency is just as important or defensemen as skill, once you have good skill. That's why Phaneuf isn't nearly as good as he once was, that's why Bieksa is overrated, and why Edler hasn't been this good since last year.

Hamhuis > Phaneuf
Hamhuis > Schultz
Hamhuis > Fowler

And btw if Phaneuf was on our team he would be in the 5 slot. Skillwise he would probably be 3rd or 4th but when you slot him into our line-up he would be on the bottom pair unfortunatly due to sides. (A concept though explained to you numourous times by many you still don't understand)

And if I had to choose Phanuef, Schultz or Hamhuis for the Olympic team judging by the way it is now Hamhuis wins that everytime.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 01 January 2013 - 04:41 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#2923 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:46 PM

A team should count on everyone to be momentum changers at one time or another, whether it be your top notch goaltender with a great save, a bottom 6 with a great hit or your 1D with a great rush. Of no matter.

Hamhuis > Phaneuf = homer glasses.


Hamhuis changes momentum too, but would you rather have youe #1 defensemen be a "momentum changer" who is a - player every year, is very inconsistent and makes terrible plays defensively.

Or have your #1 maybe not hit as much but have him be a player who a + every year (Career +61) Makes the rights plays all the time, can be counted on in the biggest situations, and excels when you need him the most, in otherwords the glue that holds everything together.

I would choose the 2nd one.
  • 0

zackass.png


#2924 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:02 PM

Well that seals it. Yzerman has been notified.
King has spoken hahaha.
Hamhius isn't as good as Phaneuf... Schultz has a better chance of making team Canada...
Cam Fowler??? Wow, You're taking that cured wizdom to new heights King lolzzzz. But you can't be serious - he has young potential, but he has really struggled in the NHL - Fowler is -53 in two years - far and away the worst on the Ducks (next worse is Sbisa at combined -16). A full -111 worse than Hamhius in two seasons.
I must be biased.
I stand corrected.


Reading comprehension is not a strength of yours. I never said that Fowler would be my choice, I said that I wouldn't be surprised. Doughty in 2010 was a surprise, as was Seabrook. Typically there are a couple of young guys that make the team unexpectedly.
  • 0

#2925 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,754 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:14 PM

Combined, the Luongo trade threads are now 322 pages; 322 pages of pure passion from fans about the best goaltender to play for the Canucks.

I'd say he's staying and fans, media and the organization will work it out.

The number of pages of discussion on CDC is probably the best indication that he's staying, I agree.
  • 0

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

MirandaKerr.jpg
2 0 1 5 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#2926 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:18 PM

The number of pages of discussion on CDC is probably the best indication that he's staying, I agree.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Makes sense.
  • 0

zackass.png


#2927 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,461 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:34 PM

A team should count on everyone to be momentum changers at one time or another, whether it be your top notch goaltender with a great save, a bottom 6 with a great hit or your 1D with a great rush. Of no matter.

Hamhuis > Phaneuf = homer glasses.


Well the Norris voting must be done by a bunch of Canucks homers because Hamhius finished 10th in voting while Phaneuf didn't show up in the top 20. Those are the kind of "homer glasses" I am wearing. 4 of the top 9 weren't Canadian, which would also put Hamhius in the top 6 - so I suppose it's ridiculous to think he might make Team Canada's roster.
Looks to me like a few people here aren't necessarily wearing homer glasses, but there may be a few of you wearing crap coloured ones.
  • 2

#2928 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:37 PM

Well the Norris voting must be done by a bunch of Canucks homers because Hamhius finished 10th in voting while Phaneuf didn't show up in the top 20. Those are the kind of "homer glasses" I am wearing. 4 of the top 9 weren't Canadian, which would also put Hamhius in the top 6 - so I suppose it's ridiculous to think he might make Team Canada's roster.
Looks to me like a few people here aren't necessarily wearing homer glasses, but there may be a few of you wearing crap coloured ones.


Can't wait to see his response to this.
  • 0

zackass.png


#2929 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,461 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

Reading comprehension is not a strength of yours. I never said that Fowler would be my choice, I said that I wouldn't be surprised. Doughty in 2010 was a surprise, as was Seabrook. Typically there are a couple of young guys that make the team unexpectedly.


Oh I see King - when you said Fowler "might" make it but Hamhius has no chance, you weren't speaking for yourself.
My mistake.

And btw, Hamhius was 16th in Norris voting the year before last as well, while Phaneuf wasn't in the top 20 either season - and there were only 6 other Canadian blueliners in the top 15 in 2011 - which would put him on the roster by 2011 and 2012 standards.
But that would be less objective than your opinion right? And the fact is biased by virtue of my having raised it.

Edited by oldnews, 01 January 2013 - 06:04 PM.

  • 1

#2930 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 06:17 PM

Well the Norris voting must be done by a bunch of Canucks homers because Hamhius finished 10th in voting while Phaneuf didn't show up in the top 20. Those are the kind of "homer glasses" I am wearing. 4 of the top 9 weren't Canadian, which would also put Hamhius in the top 6 - so I suppose it's ridiculous to think he might make Team Canada's roster.
Looks to me like a few people here aren't necessarily wearing homer glasses, but there may be a few of you wearing crap coloured ones.


How did they compare in Norris voting from 2005 - 2011?

Edited by King of the ES, 01 January 2013 - 06:17 PM.

  • 0

#2931 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,461 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 07:57 PM

Can't wait to see his response to this.


After all his homer talk, he doesn't have an answer. His 'answer' is a question.

How did they compare in Norris voting from 2005 - 2011?


I've given you the voting for the past two years King.
Are you looking to build a team for the 2006 Olympics?
Oh, Phaneuf wasn't selected, not even in his "prime"?
Those bloody homer Canucks fans!!!
  • 0

#2932 shazzam

shazzam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Posted 01 January 2013 - 08:49 PM

I agree that Weber, Pietrangelo are probably Letang are locks - after that, I think Hamhius has as good a chance as anyone.

Last year he put up 37 points and a second consecutive +29.

Doughty had 36 points and -2.
Keith had 40 and +15 (45 and -1 the year before).
Seabrook - 34 points, +21.
Subban 36 points, +9.
Burns, Boyle, Girardi all comparable to these guys, but imo, the Hammer measures up favourably, especially considering his shut down role and that his scoring is largely unassisted by pp time nor being used in an offensive role.

I think he could possibly even make the top 4, but has a really good shot at the top 6.
Yes, I'm a homer ::D - I think Hammer is still under-rated. The guy is smoooooooth.


I certainly wouldn't take Hamhuis over Doughty or Keith.

Doughty was very good in 2010 Oly as a 20/21 yr old and in his performance in the Kings cup run speaks for itself. Don't need to say much about Keith, just look at his credentials.
  • 0

#2933 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:32 PM

How did they compare in Norris voting from 2005 - 2011?


Lol nice reply, rather than address his points you ask a question that is out of context, everyone knows Phaneuf was a good player but he isn't that player anymore, right now Hamhuis is the better guy and he has the stats and Norris votes to back that up.

I don't blame you though, there really was nothing you could reply with that would help your argument.

After all his homer talk, he doesn't have an answer. His 'answer' is a question.

I've given you the voting for the past two years King.
Are you looking to build a team for the 2006 Olympics?
Oh, Phaneuf wasn't selected, not even in his "prime"?
Those bloody homer Canucks fans!!!


Lol I laughed at his response, and yeah we are such homers because we identify who the better player is. Boo us!!
  • 1

zackass.png


#2934 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,461 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:35 PM

I certainly wouldn't take Hamhuis over Doughty or Keith.

Doughty was very good in 2010 Oly as a 20/21 yr old and in his performance in the Kings cup run speaks for itself. Don't need to say much about Keith, just look at his credentials.



I'd take Seabrook over Keith (who hasn't actually been so great the past two seasons), but I think you're right that Keith is probably a shoe-in for a couple reasons.

The thing about Canada's blueline is that the vast majority of them are righthanded - right side defensemen including all five of these guys:

Weber
Pietrangelo
Letang
Doughty
Seabrook

It's almost an odd phenomenon - Boyle, Byfgulien, Girardi, Burns, Subban - all also righthanded guys - and even the future, guys like Myers and Gudbranson. A few guys like Boyle will probably be the odd guys out as a result.
If that didn't matter at all (there are some people who don't realize that it actually does) Canada could easily ice and all righty blueline.
I think Hamhius and Keith are the best left handed / left side Canadians - which I think only increases Hamhius' chances. Del Zotto might be a third guy to take. Mitchell would be my sentimental pick.
I'd probably take the five right handed guys above anyhow, and move one to his off side.

Letang Weber
Hamhius Pietrangelo
Keith Seabrook/Doughty

Edited by oldnews, 01 January 2013 - 09:45 PM.

  • 1

#2935 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:52 PM

Since Phaneuf would be our clear #1 defensemen if we brought him here (And he would probably win the Norris 10 years in a row aswell I might add) why not make this deal:

To Tor:
- Roberto Luongo (Rather than trade him straight for Mike Komisarek which we end up happening we can add him to this deal)
- Zack Kassian (He's a bust who can't dominate the AHL on a terrible team, trade him now)
- Dan Hamhuis (Hammer just isn't as good despite his career +/- being +56 higher than Dion's)
- Anton Rodin (Maybe they will take this bust off our hands)
- Keith Ballard (Useless player, our version of Scott Gomez)
- David Booth (Same as above^)
- 1st Round Pick (We can't draft anyways with Busts like Rodin, Schroeder, Jensen, exc. So why not give them this too)

To Van:
- Dion "For sure on the Olympic team" Phaneuf

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 01 January 2013 - 09:53 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#2936 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:19 PM

Hamhuis changes momentum too, but would you rather have youe #1 defensemen be a "momentum changer" who is a - player every year, is very inconsistent and makes terrible plays defensively.

Or have your #1 maybe not hit as much but have him be a player who a + every year (Career +61) Makes the rights plays all the time, can be counted on in the biggest situations, and excels when you need him the most, in otherwords the glue that holds everything together.

I would choose the 2nd one.


Hamhuis sure made the right play on that last L.A. goal didn't he. Blame Luongo. He was on the bench...
  • 1

#2937 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:36 PM

Hamhuis sure made the right play on that last L.A. goal didn't he. Blame Luongo. He was on the bench...


Lol one bad play, compared to the thousands Phaneuf has made.

And I'm a Lu lover not a Lu hater, nice try.
  • 0

zackass.png


#2938 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,461 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:15 PM

Hamhuis sure made the right play on that last L.A. goal didn't he. Blame Luongo. He was on the bench...




Haha. You mean the play where Trevor Lewis gets his left skate inside Hamhius' when turning and Hamhius loses his edge and falls? Yeah, Hamhius should never be forgiven for that one....
If that's his greatest fail, that's says alot.



On the other hand, this play is one of my favorites. It's a microcosm of Phaneuf imo. There is no trip, no check, nothing - simply poor judgement as Hansen beats him to the puck, blows by hime, and then a sad effort at the end when Hansen cuts directly in front of him and instead of taking the body, Phaneuf attempts a sad stick check.

Yeah, I'd much rather live down Hamhius' trip.
  • 0

#2939 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,754 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:55 PM

I'd take Seabrook over Keith (who hasn't actually been so great the past two seasons), but I think you're right that Keith is probably a shoe-in for a couple reasons. The thing about Canada's blueline is that the vast majority of them are righthanded - right side defensemen including all five of these guys: Weber Pietrangelo Letang Doughty Seabrook It's almost an odd phenomenon - Boyle, Byfgulien, Girardi, Burns, Subban - all also righthanded guys - and even the future, guys like Myers and Gudbranson. A few guys like Boyle will probably be the odd guys out as a result. If that didn't matter at all (there are some people who don't realize that it actually does) Canada could easily ice and all righty blueline. I think Hamhius and Keith are the best left handed / left side Canadians - which I think only increases Hamhius' chances. Del Zotto might be a third guy to take. Mitchell would be my sentimental pick. I'd probably take the five right handed guys above anyhow, and move one to his off side. Letang Weber Hamhius Pietrangelo Keith Seabrook/Doughty


Posted Image
  • 0

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

MirandaKerr.jpg
2 0 1 5 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#2940 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:05 AM

Hamhuis sure made the right play on that last L.A. goal didn't he. Blame Luongo. He was on the bench...

on the bench where he should have been....
  • 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.