Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ConnorFutureGM

Luongo Trade Theory 101

419 posts in this topic

The entire premise of my idea was that they would share the starter position. I never suggested Luo would or should stay as a backup. Yes, he would rather be the starter. Everyone knows that. The point you seem to be missing, in your hurry to claim others lack logical consistency, is that YOU are making assumptions saying he's only interested in a clear starter role even on a crap team as much as I am by assuming he would rather stay and share the starter position than go to a team with little or no Cup chance. The truth is that neither of us can truly know what he wants or if he would agree to a situation like I proposed since it's never been done.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is that Lou has control; he doesn't have to settle for a crap team with a small chance at winning the Cup. He has final say in where he goes, which makes him even less marketable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire premise of my idea was that they would share the starter position. I never suggested Luo would or should stay as a backup. Yes, he would rather be the starter. Everyone knows that. The point you seem to be missing, in your hurry to claim others lack logical consistency, is that YOU are making assumptions saying he's only interested in a clear starter role even on a crap team as much as I am by assuming he would rather stay and share the starter position than go to a team with little or no Cup chance. The truth is that neither of us can truly know what he wants or if he would agree to a situation like I proposed since it's never been done. Pretending otherwise is not common sense, it's ego. As is using the fact that he has said he would waive his NTC if asked as proof he no longer wants to play here under any situation. (Note, since you seem to be confused, that I never said Luo wouldn't leave nor have I ever suggested he wouldn't waive his NTC. I only pointed out that he said he would waive it if asked. That is very different from demanding a trade and in no way proves that he would absolutely be opposed to staying.)

Just because my speculative assumptions are different from your own does not make yours more true or more consistent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- There is no such thing as "sharing the starting position", you're either a starter or you're not. If Luongo and Scneider are "sharing" or splitting duties neither is the or a starter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. In the interest of semantics we can call it something else.

Ok. What does that have to do with me saying that's what I'd like to see? And, again, no one has asked him if he would be willing to stay to share the starter...err....goalie position because it's never been done. Thus the theory part.

And I counter with the reality that we don't know what he would do in the unlikely event that my theoretical suggestion were put into practice, or at least on the table.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have, when it comes to proposals, is finding that glaring need on this team.

Defensively, we are at, or near, the top in every stat.

Offensively it's the same thing.

So where does our weakness lie? I'm still trying to wrap my head around our problem when it comes to playoff time.

Personally, I believe it to be a grit issue. During the 2011 cup run Raffi Torres was a beast and provided the big hit threat every time he was on the ice. I think this creates a sense of awareness in the opposition and, maybe, gets them off their game a little bit. They may be professionals but they are human and nerves are still a part of them. This effect is profound to this to this players team. It creates confidence and confidence is contagious. I, personally, was pretty upset when they decided not to re-sign him. I feel MG let a big part of their success go in making that decision and, I think it's a major issue that needs to be addressed.

It could be that Kassian may provide this much needed component, but I would rather see the sure thing come back as part of a deal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have, when it comes to proposals, is finding that glaring need on this team.

Defensively, we are at, or near, the top in every stat.

Offensively it's the same thing.

So where does our weakness lie? I'm still trying to wrap my head around our problem when it comes to playoff time.

Personally, I believe it to be a grit issue. During the 2011 cup run Raffi Torres was a beast and provided the big hit threat every time he was on the ice. I think this creates a sense of awareness in the opposition and, maybe, gets them off their game a little bit. They may be professionals but they are human and nerves are still a part of them. This effect is profound to this to this players team. It creates confidence and confidence is contagious. I, personally, was pretty upset when they decided not to re-sign him. I feel MG let a big part of their success go in making that decision and, I think it's a major issue that needs to be addressed.

It could be that Kassian may provide this much needed component, but I would rather see the sure thing come back as part of a deal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does our weakness lie? I'm still trying to wrap my head around our problem when it comes to playoff time.

Personally, I believe it to be a grit issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grit is an issue, yes. We're a pretty easy team to play against, really.

That said, the biggest concern facing the Canucks right now is decline risk. Sedin's are already showing signs of decline, and if they nose-dive like Naslund did in his last 2 years here, this team could be in for some pain.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at the stats, it is more likely the Sedins are on the decline then they are not. A correlation is not evidence to anything but suggests a pattern. You don't even have a correlation supporting your side.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because one off year after back to back scoring titles, a Hart trophy and a Ted Lindsay trophy means the Sedin's are on the decline. Sick logic there...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Sedins completely deserved the 2012 Hart and Linday trophies, oh wait....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knew the Sedins, and the entire team, were not going to put up the points they did the previous season because 1) Lack of physical readiness due to playing until mid-June the previous season and 2) Lack of emotion relative to the previous season. And they still finished top 10 in scoring.

Statistics are a terrible indication of future performance. Training is a much better indicator and the Sedins train like crazy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody please find some examples of modern day elite forwards who got within 90% of their career high production in their 30s?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody please find some examples of modern day elite forwards who got within 90% of their career high production in their 30s?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two consecutive years of decline; 2009-10 being the peak. Look at the numbers if you don't believe me. Hank's 2011-12 goals were >50% less than his 2009-10 tally.

Choose to ignore these numbers if you wish, but they are facts, and I stand by my assertion that decline risk is the biggest area of concern with this team:

-Sedin's are 32

-Burrows is 31 and was invisible in the playoffs, where he's typically shone brightly

-Bieksa & Hamhuis are in their 30s

-Booth is a major question mark

-Kesler's 2010-11 campaign may have been an anomaly

Now, I'm not saying that guys like the Sedin's are going to completely fall off the rails, but given how dependent we've been on them these last 3 years, even a small pullback in their output has a pretty major impact.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a mountain of statistical evidence that most hockey players in their 30's generally decline each season. Suggesting that the Sedins will likely do the same is a safe bet.

Sure, there are exceptions - and the twins are generally exceptional. But it would be quite the anomaly for them to ever match their career years, even though they weren't too far back.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two consecutive years of decline; 2009-10 being the peak. Look at the numbers if you don't believe me. Hank's 2011-12 goals were >50% less than his 2009-10 tally.

Choose to ignore these numbers if you wish, but they are facts, and I stand by my assertion that decline risk is the biggest area of concern with this team:

-Sedin's are 32

-Burrows is 31 and was invisible in the playoffs, where he's typically shone brightly

-Bieksa & Hamhuis are in their 30s

-Booth is a major question mark

-Kesler's 2010-11 campaign may have been an anomaly

Now, I'm not saying that guys like the Sedin's are going to completely fall off the rails, but given how dependent we've been on them these last 3 years, even a small pullback in their output has a pretty major impact.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.