Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Luongo Trade Theory 101


  • Please log in to reply
418 replies to this topic

#181 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,368 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:20 PM

Luongo to Tampa makes the most sense. Lindback has 38 games of NHL experience with mediocre numbers given the team he was playing for.

To Vancouver
Malone
Garon
Connolly

To Tampa
Luongo
Raymond
****

Vancouver gets size up front, a good young BC boy and a solid experience backup. Tampa gets their elite number 1 defenseman and a speedy forward who could be a 20-25 goal scorer in the eastern conference. Salary wise it works out well too.
  • 0
Sig too big.

#182 Sup CROW

Sup CROW

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 12

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:25 PM

Lp
  • 0

#183 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:31 PM

Luongo to Tampa makes the most sense. Lindback has 38 games of NHL experience with mediocre numbers given the team he was playing for.

To Vancouver
Malone
Garon
Connolly

To Tampa
Luongo
Raymond
****

Vancouver gets size up front, a good young BC boy and a solid experience backup. Tampa gets their elite number 1 defenseman and a speedy forward who could be a 20-25 goal scorer in the eastern conference. Salary wise it works out well too.

Nobody wants Raymond. NOBODY. Why do so many people on here think they can get any value for him.

Connolly and Malone both have definite value. They would not be in a trade for Luongo, especially together.
  • 0

#184 qwijibo

qwijibo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:51 PM

Luongo to Tampa makes the most sense. Lindback has 38 games of NHL experience with mediocre numbers given the team he was playing for.

To Vancouver
Malone
Garon
Connolly

To Tampa
Luongo
Raymond
****

Vancouver gets size up front, a good young BC boy and a solid experience backup. Tampa gets their elite number 1 defenseman and a speedy forward who could be a 20-25 goal scorer in the eastern conference. Salary wise it works out well too.


Not sure about your logic here. tampa just traded for Lindback with an eye on making him the starter there. Your arguement that he only has 38 NHL games experience is somewhat hollow considering the Canucks are ready to hand the starting job to a golaie with 68 NHL games under his belt. As for his supposed mediocre numbers, his nhl career save percentage and goals against are actually very similar to Luongo's. Granted its a much smaller sampling size, but to say his numbers are mediocre is misleading
  • 0

#185 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:59 PM

The OP made some very good points about the many factors involved, but very likely the new CBA and its cap will be the biggest deciding factor in if and to whom we trade Luo.

Personally, I think we should keep Luo and use a more equal tandem. Instead of the wear and tear of being a traditional starter, they could split the number of games pretty equally or on an earned start basis. Alternating play should keep them both in shape enough to not see a significant rise in injuries, but in the event of an injury we'd still have a good starting goalie in net and not forced to rely on an unproven backup.

With an equal tandem, there would be less pressure on both goalies as neither is solely responsible for carrying the team. To hopefully bring out their best, the coaches could set up a friendly competition between them to earn starts. Assign certain games important to one of them for some reason (i.e. home towns, etc.) but leave all others up for grabs. Get a shutout, earn a start. Make more than 30 saves in a game, earn a start (and dinner from the D). Plus, we'd have the added bonus of teams not knowing too far in advance which goalie they'll be facing.

But, my wish aside, under the new CBA we just might not be able to afford Luo anymore. :(
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#186 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,936 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:06 PM

Lindback has size and skill...but unfortunately, he also has Adult On-set Stills Disease. It's surprising he can play at all, even with heavy painkillers.

I wouldn't bank on Lindback being able to carry a starter's workload on a regular basis. But he'll probably be a great 1A in a tandem.
  • 0
Posted Image

#187 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:20 PM

Nobody wants Raymond. NOBODY. Why do so many people on here think they can get any value for him.


Maybe because some of us aren't just jumping on the poor guy without first considering if it's fair. For example, people rarely dispute that Booth has value. We certainly wanted him. People on here can't scream "beast mode" often or loudly enough when it comes to Booth, and yet when you compare Booth's and Raymond's stats from last season you see that for his $1.65M of additional cap hit, Booth only gave us 9 more points (as a Canuck), 2 more PPG, 1 fewer GWG, 1 fewer SHG, and 14 more wasted penalty minutes than we got from Raymond.

Even if you go back a year, Booth got 40 points in 2010/11 and Raymond got 39. And that was the year Booth set the league low for forward's +/- at -31. In fact, only one player, D Chris Phillips, managed a worse +/- that season. (in his entire career, Raymond has never ended a regular season with a minus.)

With comparable numbers, Raymond seems to be more bang for the buck even if people just don't like him as much.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#188 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:24 PM

Personally, I think we should keep Luo and use a more equal tandem. Instead of the wear and tear of being a traditional starter, they could split the number of games pretty equally or on an earned start basis. Alternating play should keep them both in shape enough to not see a significant rise in injuries, but in the event of an injury we'd still have a good starting goalie in net and not forced to rely on an unproven backup.


For many obvious reasons, the two goalies would not be interested in this.

It's why Philadelphia needed to decide between McNabb & Vick, San Diego needed to decide between Brees & Rivers, New England had to decide between Bledsoe & Brady, etc. You can't have guys "alternating", it simply will not work.
  • 0

#189 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:26 PM

For many obvious reasons, the two goalies would not be interested in this.

It's why Philadelphia needed to decide between McNabb & Vick, San Diego needed to decide between Brees & Rivers, New England had to decide between Bledsoe & Brady, etc. You can't have guys "alternating", it simply will not work.


Why?
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#190 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:08 PM

Why?


Money, for one. Schneider wants to be a number-one guy and will want to be put in a position where he'll be paid like one. Alternating with Luongo, who is already paid like a number-one guy, will not get him there.

And even Luongo, he won't want to spend the next 10 years being the media's whipping boy as the half-starter who's paid like a franchise player. It's not a good situation for anybody.

Edited by King of the ES, 08 November 2012 - 06:09 PM.

  • 0

#191 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:24 PM

Money, for one. Schneider wants to be a number-one guy and will want to be put in a position where he'll be paid like one. Alternating with Luongo, who is already paid like a number-one guy, will not get him there.

And even Luongo, he won't want to spend the next 10 years being the media's whipping boy as the half-starter who's paid like a franchise player. It's not a good situation for anybody.


How does money come into play? Schneider already signed his 3-year deal and Luo's signed until like 3089 or something. Even assuming my proposed solution wasn't just a one year deal but instead worked well enough to be used over the entirety of Schneider's deal, he'll still play 40+ games a season. Assuming his numbers hold, or even improve, what team wouldn't think he looks like a reliable, big salary starter and real team player?

When did you have that conversation with Luongo? Because I'm pretty sure in a recent interview he said he was willing to come back and play for Vancouver. He always only said that he didn't want to be in Schneider's way and would do whatever the team asked him to do. So, if the team asks him to stay why wouldn't he? And, as competitive as he is I have to think staying and sharing the starting position on a Cup contending team would be preferable to getting to play more but on a team that only ever sees the playoffs on TV.

As for the whipping boy part, well, how would that be different than the rest of his time in Vancouver?
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#192 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:43 PM

How does money come into play? Schneider already signed his 3-year deal and Luo's signed until like 3089 or something. Even assuming my proposed solution wasn't just a one year deal but instead worked well enough to be used over the entirety of Schneider's deal, he'll still play 40+ games a season. Assuming his numbers hold, or even improve, what team wouldn't think he looks like a reliable, big salary starter and real team player?

When did you have that conversation with Luongo? Because I'm pretty sure in a recent interview he said he was willing to come back and play for Vancouver. He always only said that he didn't want to be in Schneider's way and would do whatever the team asked him to do. So, if the team asks him to stay why wouldn't he? And, as competitive as he is I have to think staying and sharing the starting position on a Cup contending team would be preferable to getting to play more but on a team that only ever sees the playoffs on TV.

As for the whipping boy part, well, how would that be different than the rest of his time in Vancouver?

It is obvious that Luongo wants to go to another team. He goes on Vancouver talks shows to talk about how he wouldn't mind playing in city X. If Luongo wanted to stay in Vancouver, he would be staying. There would be no trade rumours about him because he has the NTC. It would be Schneider who is traded.

Use common sense.
  • 0

#193 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:33 PM

It is obvious that Luongo wants to go to another team. He goes on Vancouver talks shows to talk about how he wouldn't mind playing in city X. If Luongo wanted to stay in Vancouver, he would be staying. There would be no trade rumours about him because he has the NTC. It would be Schneider who is traded.

Use common sense.


Pretending the decision on whether or not Luo or Schneider is the starter was up to Luo's personal preferences is far from common sense.

People started saying that Schneider was going to be Vancouver's starter after he got the last 2 starts in the playoffs last year. People said Luo should go because it was Schneider's time, especially given that Schneider's contract was up. Given the constant pressure and media attention over how "Schneider had seized the starter position," Luo said he thought it might be time to move on but that he would do whatever the team wanted. And in order to do whatever the team wanted he said, if they wanted, he would agree to waive his NTC. It's not common sense to hold that against him as proof that he doesn't want to play here as opposed to proof that even now he's team player.

And Luo has repeatedly said he likes playing here and would be happy to play here. Of course when people ask him about how he'd like to play for other possible cities he'll answer the question. He's a professional. That does not equate with "Get me out of here. Common sense says I never want to play for Vancouver ever again."

Edited by poetica, 08 November 2012 - 07:34 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#194 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:58 AM

And Luo has repeatedly said he likes playing here and would be happy to play here. Of course when people ask him about how he'd like to play for other possible cities he'll answer the question. He's a professional. That does not equate with "Get me out of here. Common sense says I never want to play for Vancouver ever again."


What do you expect him to say? Honestly.

And do you really think that the Canucks would've signed Schneider to a $4M contract to "share the duties" with their $5.2M guy for the next 3 years? $9.2M allocated to their goalies? Think about it.

Luongo's as good as gone, not sure how this is even a debate. Look at his Twitter avatar, for crying out loud.
  • 0

#195 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:41 AM

What do you expect him to say? Honestly.

And do you really think that the Canucks would've signed Schneider to a $4M contract to "share the duties" with their $5.2M guy for the next 3 years? $9.2M allocated to their goalies? Think about it.

Luongo's as good as gone, not sure how this is even a debate. Look at his Twitter avatar, for crying out loud.


I would expect him to be professional. But that doesn't mean he was lying when he's repeatedly said he likes playing here, especially since he's been saying it for years.

What is the point of your messages? I said what I would like to see was an equal tandem. I never said that was what was planned and I certainly never said we could afford it. In fact, I specifically said the opposite. So your snarkiness is misplaced and unnecessary.

If you're unsure "how this is even a debate" I guess you should ask yourself why you turned it into one.

Edited by poetica, 09 November 2012 - 10:41 AM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#196 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:56 AM

I would expect him to be professional. But that doesn't mean he was lying when he's repeatedly said he likes playing here, especially since he's been saying it for years.


Of course it doesn't. He probably does/did like playing here. But he's been replaced, so he wants to move on. He's still a hockey player.

What is the point of your messages? I said what I would like to see was an equal tandem. I never said that was what was planned and I certainly never said we could afford it. In fact, I specifically said the opposite. So your snarkiness is misplaced and unnecessary.


You said that we "might" not be able to afford Luongo, and then you went on to defend your "equal tandem" assertion for a few posts. It just wouldn't work. I'm not trying to be snarky, but Vancouver needs a clear separation between starter and backup.
  • 0

#197 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:52 PM

You said that we "might" not be able to afford Luongo, and then you went on to defend your "equal tandem" assertion for a few posts. It just wouldn't work. I'm not trying to be snarky, but Vancouver needs a clear separation between starter and backup.


Right. I conceded from my very first post in this thread that even though I like the idea we probably can't afford it. So why beleaguer the point?

As for me "defending" my equal tandem idea (not assertion, as I never said it was anything more than what I would like to see), I have said 1) Schneider's desire for a future bigger paycheck shouldn't be a deciding factor for who's in net, 2) that it's not Luo's personal decision whether he stays or goes (beyond him saying he would waive his NTC), 3) that Luo has repeatedly said he likes to play here and will do whatever the team asks of him, and 4) that everyone's assertion that Schneider supplanted Luo as the starter in the playoffs last year simply because of 2 starts should not be taken as an absolute commitment to that setup to the exclusion of all other possibilities (especially in regard to a fan posting ideas at a forum!) And I stand by those statements.

You chose to respond to my original message, only to complain that you don't know "why it's a debate at all" that, even in the realm of wishful thinking, everyone doesn't share your opinion that things can only be one way. Other than arguing that only a "clear separation between starter and backup" will work simply because that's how it's always done, I'm not sure what your point is.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#198 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,218 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:13 PM

I'm not sure what your point is.


I think this is what everyone finds themselves asking when there are in an argument with King of ES.
  • 0

zackass.png


#199 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:20 PM

Pretending the decision on whether or not Luo or Schneider is the starter was up to Luo's personal preferences is far from common sense.

People started saying that Schneider was going to be Vancouver's starter after he got the last 2 starts in the playoffs last year. People said Luo should go because it was Schneider's time, especially given that Schneider's contract was up. Given the constant pressure and media attention over how "Schneider had seized the starter position," Luo said he thought it might be time to move on but that he would do whatever the team wanted. And in order to do whatever the team wanted he said, if they wanted, he would agree to waive his NTC. It's not common sense to hold that against him as proof that he doesn't want to play here as opposed to proof that even now he's team player.

And Luo has repeatedly said he likes playing here and would be happy to play here. Of course when people ask him about how he'd like to play for other possible cities he'll answer the question. He's a professional. That does not equate with "Get me out of here. Common sense says I never want to play for Vancouver ever again."

I never said that it was up to Luongo if he was the starter or not, I said that if wanted to stay Gillis couldn't trade him. The only option Gillis would have is waivers, keep both goalies or trade Schneider.You are making assumptions on Luongo's reasoning. I never said he wasn't a team player. I assume as most people do is that Luongo's main preference is to be a starter on the Canucks if not on another team.It's funny how you think he is realistically saying he would love to stay in Vancouver (even if it's as a backup) but he's just being curteous when people ask him if he would waive his NTC to go to city X. You have very selective logic that is not held at a consistent standard.Common sense is Luongo wants to be a starter. These trade rumours started when Schneider got the nod before Luongo. Your argument is flawed and inconsistent.
  • 0

#200 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:28 PM

I never said that it was up to Luongo if he was the starter or not, I said that if wanted to stay Gillis couldn't trade him. The only option Gillis would have is waivers, keep both goalies or trade Schneider.You are making assumptions on Luongo's reasoning. I never said he wasn't a team player. I assume as most people do is that Luongo's main preference is to be a starter on the Canucks if not on another team.It's funny how you think he is realistically saying he would love to stay in Vancouver (even if it's as a backup) but he's just being curteous when people ask him if he would waive his NTC to go to city X. You have very selective logic that is not held at a consistent standard.Common sense is Luongo wants to be a starter. These trade rumours started when Schneider got the nod before Luongo. Your argument is flawed and inconsistent.


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.

Edited by poetica, 09 November 2012 - 05:48 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#201 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:13 PM

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.


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.

As for these "assumptions", honestly, can we all just agree that he's getting traded? I'm not going to search around for links, but I am sure that he has said, on multiple occasions, that "it's best for both parties to just move on", something to that effect. Yes, he's said that coming back to Vancouver "wouldn't be the end of the world" (a ringing endorsement, indeed), but he's also made it very clear that it would just be temporary. I also believe he said that he didn't expect to be back in Vancouver in August, preparing for training camp. The shared starter idea makes sense in theory, but one would inevitably outshine the other, and we would then be in the exact same scenario that we're in now.
  • 0

#202 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:57 PM

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.


The team has a big say in it and other teams have a big say in it. He certainly has some control, but not complete. But still, what does that have to do with anything I talked about in my original post?

As for these "assumptions", honestly, can we all just agree that he's getting traded?


Most likely. But again, what does that have to do with the my original post supposing an equal tandem? Again, I said it's what I would like, not what I think is going to happen. But, the truth is, we don't know how long it will take to move him. As you pointed out, there may be some issues with his marketability. Maybe they have a team on board already, or maybe it'll take a whole season to get him traded without giving up too much in the deal (especially if the NHL's proposed cap forgiveness for the first season makes it in the new CBA). In the event he is still here, I don't see that it makes sense to leave him to rot on the bench in the meantime just because people assume he doesn't want to play here anymore.

The shared starter idea makes sense in theory, but one would inevitably outshine the other, and we would then be in the exact same scenario that we're in now.


I never supposed an equal tandem would work indefinitely. However, I do think it could be effective in the short term. Where we are now is with a supposed heir to the throne who actually has no real starter experience being thrust into the spotlight just because his 50% playoff success rate was better than Luo's despite mitigating factors (Daniel's return, better play by the rest of the team, etc.) We don't know how he'll handle the pressure put on goalies here, or even how he'll handle playing 3x the number of games. For those reason, I do not see how using an equal tandem would hurt the team if we still have Luo. If anything, we'd be better off after a year of it than we are now because Schneider would be eased into the starter position, instead of thrust into it completely without a safety net.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#203 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:14 PM

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.

- 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.

- I said I was assuming when I said he would prefer to be a starter somewhere else than a backup or a "sharing starter" in Vancouver. I have yet to hear a single legitimate hockey analyst say that Luongo wants to stay in Vancouver in any shape, way or form.

- You suggest that he is open to staying in Vancouver. I counter by saying that he would much more prefer a trade than staying in Vancouver.
  • 0

#204 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:38 PM

- 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.


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

- I said I was assuming when I said he would prefer to be a starter somewhere else than a backup or a "sharing starter" in Vancouver. I have yet to hear a single legitimate hockey analyst say that Luongo wants to stay in Vancouver in any shape, way or form.


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.

- You suggest that he is open to staying in Vancouver. I counter by saying that he would much more prefer a trade than staying in Vancouver.


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
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#205 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:26 AM

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.

We agree that Luongo is likely to get traded.

We disagree on his preference of being the official starter.

We agree that we don't know what he actually wants, I think that about leaves us here unless somebody knows him.
  • 0

#206 komodo1970

komodo1970

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:59 PM

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

#207 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,218 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:05 PM

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.


I think we should be looking to add another top 6 forward and (if possible) another 2nd/3rd line calibre center, and maybe another 4th line player that could help int he playoffs.

Other than that I agree, our team doesn't have many needs, I just think we need to stay healthy this time around and we will be good.
  • 0

zackass.png


#208 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:01 PM

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.


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

#209 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,353 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

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.

For the last friggin time, one 'off year' does not mean a player is on the decline!
  • 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


#210 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:04 PM

For the last friggin time, one 'off year' does not mean a player is on the decline!

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




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.