• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      All Threads Must Contain Tags!   07/25/2017

      ALL THREADS MUST CONTAIN TAGS   All threads in this forum must contain tags prefixed to topic titles. The purpose of the tags is to eliminate confusion in recent threads lists, and to create an organized and consistent environment. Moderators may immediately lock and thread that does not contain tags.    Tags must be placed at the start of your thread title, following this exact formatting:    [Tag] Thread Title   Here are some of the most used popular tags:    [Proposal]
      A trade, or trades, for next season, or even the off-season.
      [Off-Season]
      FA signings, off-season trades for RFA's, UFA's rights etc...
      [Value Of]
      (A question regarding a players worth, whether from another team, or the Canucks)
      [Speculation] Posting a rumor (with a source of course), but providing why it could be possible for the Canucks to land that player.   [Discussion]
      Thoughts on team trading strategy and composition.   Please feel free to create your own tag if none of these suit your thread.   

Archived

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

ConnorFutureGM

Luongo Trade Theory 101

Recommended Posts

One of the most fundamental truths of negotiations is that he who cares less, wins. Mike Gillis will be a lot more eager to get rid of Luongo than anybody will be to acquire him. This puts him in a terrible position. He can put on a front that he's happy to keep both 'tenders, but other GMs just aren't that stupid. There is simply no chance in hell that Gillis/Vancouver will want to allocate $5.3M of cap space to their backup goaltender - and, no, they're not going to split the duty 50/50. In football, if you have two QB's, you have none. Not much different in hockey with goaltenders. This would just create two justifiably disgruntled goalies. Awful idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And once again, you automatically assume that Luongo will not be traded in a timely fashion. Can you perhaps wait at least a week after the season begins before starting in with the "OMG, when are they ever going to trade Luongo?" comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, he wasn't proposing a trade, he was pointing out what Jaroslav Halak was traded for; Lars Eller and Ian Schultz.

Which is again something for you to consider, in light of your Purcell/Aulie/1st idea. Montreal had two goalies, and they needed to move one (sound familiar?). They got Lars Eller and Ian Schultz. Eller's OK - he's Jannik Hansen - Ian Schultz is a 3rd round pick who will probably never see the NHL.

So, again, if all that Montreal could get for a 25 year-old that led his team to the ECF in stunning fashion as an 8th seed was a Jannik Hansen-comparable and a mid-to-low level prospect, how in the world do you expect Mike Gillis to land Teddy Purcell, Keith Aulie, and a 1st round pick for 33 year-old Roberto Luongo, with 9 years remaining on his contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an assumption right there. How do you know that they're such good friends? You really consume the crap that Gillis et. al. feeds you through the media like it's gospel, don't you?

You are simply clueless if you think that the two goalies would be OK with an arrangement like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luongo is shaky in the playoffs and even the most blind fanboy should be able to see that.

You referenced round 1 against Chicago in 2011 a couple times. Did you forget about our 3-0 series lead? There was no way that series should've gone 7 games. You say without Luongo that we would've been out in that very same 1st round, we were one goal away from that and it was largely due to Luongo's annually shaky playoff performance.

Chances are we dont make the playoffs in '07 without Luongo, however he did benefit from AV's strictly defense first system.

With Schneider on the team in '11 and '12, whether or not we win the PT is debatable. In '11 we did win by a landslide.

Again with 2011, we almost didn't make it out of round 1 in large part because of Luongo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, US election results are on. Can you believe that most of the folks south of the border don't even care about hockey?

regards,

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so laughable, because anyone who watched the games that season would realize that Luongo won AV the Jack Adams trophy, I don't even know how it is debatable. That wasn't a playoff team, it was just Lu. The skater roster had gotten worse after a season in which we missed the playoffs. And who was more benefical to our success? Luongo or AV? Luongo is the clear correct choice.

As for the rest, I guess you also didn't see the terrible play by our players, go back and watch the full highlights in games 4 and 5? and you will see how terribly we played and how much better than Hawks were playing than we were.

Your argument is just another case of: When we lose it is all Roberto's fault, when we win it is inspite of Roberto. Which really is an age old argument that niether side will ever win, you just have to be able to realize that it is a team sport, and you have to look at everyone's play before you assess the blame to one person, which people in this city clearly don't do enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe that Luongo will be traded in a timely fashion, why are you so concerned about his continued presence on the team? It is a major harping point on your part.

Just out of curiosity, how do you define "in a timely fashion"? Hours after the new CBA is signed? A day? A week? A month? From the tone of some of your posts, if Luongo was around for perhaps a week(?), then things would go south for the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh OK, so are you saying that Luongo would get a higher return than Schneider would? Much more proven, right?

Not how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never even said Luongo would get a better return than Schneider, I said he'd get a better return than Halak. Poor reading comprehension to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that he'd get a better return than Halak because he's more proven.

That being the case, then, it would logically follow that he'd also get a better return than Schneider, since he also is more proven than him. Do you see the flawed logic that you've offered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being the case, then, it would logically follow that he'd also get a better return than Schneider, since he also is more proven than him. Do you see the flawed logic that you've offered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was talking about Halak's value then vs Luongo's now, he never said anything about Schneider

Schneider's scenerio is different than both, so it's not really a good comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.