RunningWild, on 15 October 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:
It's been reported that as of a few days ago, 5 teams were calling about Luongo. Wheter he has 9 yrs, or 8 1/2 yrs left on his contract doesn't change. His contract will not change unless there's something in the new CBA. Those 5 teams calling now are aware of his contract, how he played last season etc - but they're still interested.
That's an interesting perspective, but again you're assuming Luongo will be the back up.
It's recognized that limited teams have interest in a goalie change, hence 5 teams that are reportedly calling about him. I'd argue 5 teams is not small, it's roughly 20% of the market. So you're arguing 'perceptions' of eliteness will alter his trade value? Always possible, but not really plausible. He's been an NHL player for 10+ years, as a GM you're more likely to value the larger sample size with focus on the last 3 or so years. Also, counseling your fan base about a trade is a PR issue, they have PR depts for that. It doesn't alter actual value.
The 2 most notable scenarios where I see his trade value decreasing:
a) More quality goaltenders are made available after the lockout
b ) Those teams who are currently interested, decide to go with their current tandem cause they're playing better than expected.
I'm not so sure you have been watching the Vancouver market; The Canucks PR team have not been in very good form counselling their fans of trades recently. "What that (dumb bastard Hodgson) was more trouble than all other players put together the last 4 years!"
I argue a repercussion
is Gillis himself is gun shy, trying to be sure he gets good value this time?
oldnews, on 15 October 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:
Yeah i know - Luongo has had 4 or 5 playoff breakdowns. People love to remember the bad games he has had against Chicago and Boston. They forget the four shutouts he had on route to that game 7 loss of the SCF. His lifetime .916 playoff sv% is 3 one thousandths off his regular season lifetime mark (half of those seasons were played behind the Islanders and Panthers) and 3 one thousanths off Martin Brodeurs's lifetime playoff mark (who, by the way, was playing behind the trapping NJD, and Scott Stevens, et al.) Luongo's worst playoff years were a 6 and 6 year with a .895 sv%, and last years 0-2 with a .891. Brodeur has had a 3-4 with an .856 sv%, a 1-4 with .881, another 1-4 with .891. He lost a game 7 of SCF and had a .897 mark that year. Doesn't really qualify your highway analogy does it. People here are pretty nearsighted. I suppose you wouldn't want to take Brodeur out on the highway either? Give Luongo 17 playoffs seasons with teams like the Devils had and he'd get-er-done a few times as well. I personally will never blame Luongo for the loss in game 7 - the Canucks imo simply weren't good/deep enough to beat Boston without Hamhius (and Rome) in the lineup. One more win however and Luongo's playoff stereotype would have swung wildly in the absolute opposite direction among fickle Canucks fans.
Sometimes I wish this fan base could have another taste of what truly awful goaltending looks like.
Did you see the Philly / Pittsburgh series last playoffs by any chance? Bryzgalov matched Luongo's lifetime worth of breakdowns in one single series. Fleury, not exactly a terrible goaltender (and a SC champion and Olympian), likewise, was absolutely, inexplicably horrible. It happens.
People here protest too much.
This is the single best argument I have seen supporting Luongo; well done!
As compelling as it is; the great playoff goalies were " clutch" and won both games and series, if not carrying their team kicking and screaming (ala rookie Patrick Roy 10 shutout Conn Smythe winning year) all the way to championships. Lou may have done that for 1 series, and been consistent in a few. Aside from L.A. a few years ago; can you remember when Lou would have been voted our MVP? But he is known for tanking it in games 5 & 7 against Chicago 3 / 4 years ago, letting Chicago back from 3 game leads versus burying them, not stealing a game in Boston when we were being outplayed but had a 2 game lead, or when injuries were mounting and odd's were stacked against us???
Stealing a victory in game 3 in Boston could have vaulted Lou into the HHOF, more so for game 6. And we need to remind ourselves that at that time he was the highest paid hockey player ($10 mill for that season) in the world. He let his tires get deflated and he was mentally out of it. That is why it's time to move on. And we had injuries and were being outplayed by L.A., so we also needed our $50 million dollar goalie to steal us that series. But he was not up to it. Quick was outplaying him and Schneider (albeit for a few games) also looked better. And then he wants a trade cuz his pride is hurt... It just spells that the situation will repeat itself.
As good as Lou is, which you clearly pointed out; he is not a man of the biggest moments. Even if they failed in some years, the Brodeur's, Dryden's and Roy's of the world enjoy their perch for a reason.
Edited by Canuck Surfer, 16 October 2012 - 01:22 AM.