Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 5.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3019 replies to this topic

#511 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:43 PM

Tom Wilson would be a nice fit for down the road when the Sedins retire.

Rodin-Kesler-Kassian
Jensen-Schroeder-Wilson

Gaunce in the #3 hole.


Rodin on the 1st?

I would go:

Gaunce - Kesler - Kassian
Jensen - Schroeder - ?
Rodin - ? - Wilson

? can be filled by the draft/trading for young players or signings, possibly even having some players (Hansen, Raymond, Booth) Stick around.
  • 0

zackass.png


#512 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,342 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:43 PM

Solid lineup but I still think a Raymond-Schroeder duo is too soft for playoff hockey. I guess we could always swap Booth and Raymond around if Raymond and Schroeder stop puttin' up numbers.


It has a ton of speed though, and would likely be very solid defensively. I don't see it being that much softer than Chicago's third line of Versteeg - Bolland - Brouwer. Versteeg is soft, and Bolland isn't tough, he's just annoying.

We're not always going to need grit in the playoffs. Sometimes we'll get matchups where we'll need more scoring from the third, which is where the Raymond - Schroeder - Brouwer line would be more effective. Then in more physical matchups we could play the Higgins - Lapierre - Hansen line, or load it up and have a Higgins - Lapierre - Brouwer line. Either way, I think its good to have the option of having more grit with the addition of Brouwer.
  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#513 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:44 PM

Will people ever understand what NEWS ONLY means?


i doubt it, people dont read anymore. If they did every BC resident of adult age would be going gangbuster on their MP about FIPPA and its possible ramifications for BC residents. i digress back to the luongo talk!
  • 0

#514 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:46 PM

the more i think about this the more i think your right. that is a scary lineup with all kinds of depth. Would suck to have to waive 2 of malhotra/weise/volpatti to get to the 23 man roster. Although they could always waive barker and go with 7 D's since even if he is claimed vandermeer doesnt have to go on reentry waivers if they need him in the playoffs.

more i think about it the more i like it for both teams.

And you'd still have Volpatti, Manny and Weise presumably still hanging around.

Better than a 2.5 million dollar fourth liner.

Malhotra and Raymond likely won't be re-signed, so that's your cap space right there.

This may be one of our last few good chances at a cup. We need something to help us go for it now, plus something for the future.


So whats the deal.

I think we should get Orlov, or a 1st if we can aswell. Orlov would fill a nice spot beside Tanev next year if Ballard gets moved in the offseason. A 1st would also be nice as it is a very deep draft but I don't know if we can get all 3.

To Washington: Roberto Luongo

To Vancouver: Troy Brouwer, Dimitry Orlov, Micheal Nuevirth, 3rd

? Is that fair?

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 26 January 2013 - 10:47 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#515 vcr1970

vcr1970

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:46 PM

For all the people here who think we're going to get a great return for Lu...:

1. Lu asked to be traded. And, then he went on television and told the world that. You can say 'he didn't ask to be traded, he only said he'd do what's best for the team' - but that's pure crap. When you have an NTC and tell your team you wouldn't mind being traded - that's a trade-request. If he was doing what's best for the team, he wouldn't have asked for a trade - and if he did, he wouldn't have made that public. You'll also remember that just recently, he told a reporter that he doesn't want to be here long-term. When other teams know a player wants out, they don't offer anything of value for him. They know we have to get rid of him, so they can sit back and wait for us to get desperate. And, that's exactly what they have been doing.
2. Lu is, right now, our backup goaltender. Name me one other backup who was traded for a massive package of top players, prospects AND picks. Why would other teams trade away their future for a goalie who just got badly outplayed by a rookie/sophmore the last two years?
3. Lu has a massive contract, that has him playing into his mid-40's. That's a massive negative in any trade. Notice how Gillis mentioned that every team that offers us anything for Lu tacks on a massive contract that we'll have to buy-out?
4. It's been reported (now by multiple hockey journalists, most recently Tony Gallagher on Team1040) that Lu refused to waive his NTC to go to Toronto at the draft, so that he could give Florida more time to up their offer. When a player tries to force a team to trade him to a specific team (or very short list of teams), his original team never gets much in return. Florida knows Lu is trying to force a trade there AND they don't need him, so they aren't going to pull the trigger on a deal unless they absolutely rape us. Until Lu gives us a large list of possible teams, we'll be stuck with a bad deal.

The only thing going in our favour on this is the fact that Gillis is one of the best GMs in the history of the NHL. But, he can't work miracles. So, don't expect a top-6 forward, a top-tier prospect and a 1st round draft pick. That's insane. We'd be lucky to get much more than one of those...


Finally, someone out there who actually gets it. I agree with 100% of what you said, until the Gillis being one of the best GM's in hockey history part. He hasn't been around long enough or done anything of substance yet to warrant that praise.

I know Lu is better than Bernier, but Lu is a back up just like Bernier.

Imagine if the Canucks needed a goalie and you read that LA expected to get Kassian (a prospect), Burrows (a top six forward) and a 1st round draft pick for him??? How ridiculous does that sound? Its pretty much what everyone expects another team to give up for Luongo. But I'm assuming that's not a fair comparison because Luongo is on our team, right?
  • 0

#516 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:47 PM

It has a ton of speed though, and would likely be very solid defensively. I don't see it being that much softer than Chicago's third line of Versteeg - Bolland - Brouwer. Versteeg is soft, and Bolland isn't tough, he's just annoying.

We're not always going to need grit in the playoffs. Sometimes we'll get matchups where we'll need more scoring from the third, which is where the Raymond - Schroeder - Brouwer line would be more effective. Then in more physical matchups we could play the Higgins - Lapierre - Hansen line, or load it up and have a Higgins - Lapierre - Brouwer line. Either way, I think its good to have the option of having more grit with the addition of Brouwer.


My feeling on it exactly, +1
  • 0

zackass.png


#517 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

Will people ever understand what NEWS ONLY means?


Isn't there a thread for "NEWS ONLY".... this appears to be a "DISCUSSION" thread as per the title. Thanks for trying to be the hall monitor though... people love guys like that.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#518 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,841 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:52 PM

Isn't there a thread for "NEWS ONLY".... this appears to be a "DISCUSSION" thread as per the title. Thanks for trying to be the hall monitor though... people love guys like that.

Sorry its just annoying/a let down to see a new post in the news thread only to see the post is anything news related.
  • 0
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#519 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:53 PM

As per some of the above comments, I definitely think we need more grit in the lineup. If it wasn't for the refs actually calling penalties, we would have lost the Anaheim game.

We all know how that went during the Boston series. I would prefer a team that can win regardless of how the game is called.

Trade Raymond soon while his value is a little higher and open up a roster spot. We need more guys who are useful even if they aren't scoring.... at least in my opinion.
  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#520 vcr1970

vcr1970

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:59 PM

Haha, tell that to Toronto fans. After the last 8 years do you think they look at the start of this season and say don't worry, we know they will come around, or do you think they are in a panic?


You do realize that we're one week into the season and TO is only 1 point behind the Canucks, right?
  • 0

#521 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:03 PM

As per some of the above comments, I definitely think we need more grit in the lineup. If it wasn't for the refs actually calling penalties, we would have lost the Anaheim game.

We all know how that went during the Boston series. I would prefer a team that can win regardless of how the game is called.

Trade Raymond soon while his value is a little higher and open up a roster spot. We need more guys who are useful even if they aren't scoring.... at least in my opinion.


Should keep Raymond, he is one of our best players right now.
  • 0

zackass.png


#522 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:12 PM

Should keep Raymond, he is one of our best players right now.


I think you may need a little brush up on the "sell high, buy low" principle.

We have seen a whole lot of Raymond over the years and he has had fairly limited success. If he isn't scoring, he is of no use to the team at all... we actually have two players like that already in our top 6 and they both have the last name Sedin. Thankfully they are players that actually score all the time, Raymond will never be in that class and there will always be long stretches where he is of no use on the ice... especially considering he would be on the 3rd line in a healthy roster.

While he is on a high, you get something that complements our core better. Maybe read the rationale in my post that you quoted.

Edited by Provost, 26 January 2013 - 11:13 PM.

  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#523 vcr1970

vcr1970

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:13 PM

Should keep Raymond, he is one of our best players right now.


So let me see if I understand this:

We couldn't trade Mason Raymond last year because he wasn't doing well; we can't trade him this year because he's playing too well.

Two years ago leading up to the Olympics, we couldn't trade Pavol Demitra because he wasn't playing well and wouldn't get us much in return, then he went to the Olympics and we couldn't trade him when he got back because he played so well and we had to keep him because of this......................so when can we ever trade someone? I though you were supposed to buy low and sell high............e.g. trade someone who is overperforming so you get top value for him.
  • 0

#524 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:28 PM

I think you may need a little brush up on the "sell high, buy low" principle.

We have seen a whole lot of Raymond over the years and he has had fairly limited success. If he isn't scoring, he is of no use to the team at all... we actually have two players like that already in our top 6 and they both have the last name Sedin. Thankfully they are players that actually score all the time, Raymond will never be in that class and there will always be long stretches where he is of no use on the ice... especially considering he would be on the 3rd line in a healthy roster.

While he is on a high, you get something that complements our core better. Maybe read the rationale in my post that you quoted.


I'm fully aware of the "buy low, sell high" rationale.

You are also thinking there are some GM's stupid enough to trade for an unproven player, he won't fetch us a top 6 forward, yes he is having a great year so far, but warning flags go up when you see the previous 2 seasons.

You have to take into account the rationale that some players are more valuable to certain teams, than what that player would yield in a trade. That's the case here.

our Achilles heal in the playoffs the last 2 years has been scoring, we have enough grit, but trading away a scoring player who is scoring for what would probably be a 3rd liner who brings less offense doesn't make alot of sense to me right now.
  • 0

zackass.png


#525 allkill326

allkill326

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,270 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:30 PM

You do realize that we're one week into the season and TO is only 1 point behind the Canucks, right?


You do realize Canucks are notorious for their slow starts, and they will eventually pick up their pace, resulting in a much greater difference and differential from the Maple Leafs?
  • 0
Posted Image

#526 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:30 PM

So let me see if I understand this:

We couldn't trade Mason Raymond last year because he wasn't doing well; we can't trade him this year because he's playing too well.

Two years ago leading up to the Olympics, we couldn't trade Pavol Demitra because he wasn't playing well and wouldn't get us much in return, then he went to the Olympics and we couldn't trade him when he got back because he played so well and we had to keep him because of this......................so when can we ever trade someone? I though you were supposed to buy low and sell high............e.g. trade someone who is overperforming so you get top value for him.


I never mentioned anything about Pavol.

As I just illustrated above^ Raymond's value is still largely a question mark around the league. He won't yield us a top 6 forward and he has shown great chemistry with JS which has added much needed secondary scoring, which is crucial in the playoffs and which has been where we have failed in the last 2 playoff years.

you have to consider his value to this team right vs the value he could yield in a trade.
  • 0

zackass.png


#527 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:33 PM

our Achilles heal in the playoffs the last 2 years has been scoring, we have enough grit, but trading away a scoring player who is scoring for what would probably be a 3rd liner who brings less offense doesn't make alot of sense to me right now.


Well, then you are just plain wrong.

We lost in the last two playoffs because our players were pushed around and punished to the point they stopped making plays and started getting rid of the puck as soon as they could. We didn't score because our forwards were spending all their time with their heads on a swivel avoiding hits rather than looking for scoring chances.

Also, your logic saying that Raymond is unproven kind of defeats your own point about him being untradeable. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth on that one.

You also need to spend some time reading and comprehending the posts that you quote. You say that Raymond is more valuable to us than to other teams... as I already pointed out (and as most folks are aware) we have a couple of non-physical players already in our top 6, so another much less skilled one is not actually of more use to us than other teams. He will be even less use when he is shuffled down to the 3rd line when Booth/Kesler return.

Kassian has taken Raymond's top 6 role and is likely to keep it for most of the season, if he slows down scoring... he still serves a very useful purpose on the ice.

Edited by Provost, 26 January 2013 - 11:37 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#528 canuck_trevor16

canuck_trevor16

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,657 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 07

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:35 PM

I think when the trade do happen, it will be closer to the trade deadline........GM will panic and tend to overpaid to get what they want to make the playoffs.........Sometime in MArch should be when the trade happen or maybe earlier if the offer is right
  • 0

One day some of us will look back on the year and look at the chicago, and most of us will realize that it was a small bump in the road to the cup


WIN THE CUP FOR SALO CAMPAIGN

#529 allkill326

allkill326

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,270 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:37 PM

Well, then you are just plain wrong.

We lost in the last two playoffs because our players were pushed around and punished to the point they stopped making plays and started getting rid of the puck as soon as they could. We didn't score because our forwards were spending all their time with their heads on a swivel avoiding hits rather than looking for scoring chances.


So, you're saying the Canucks did not exert any effort againat their opponents, because they were scared of them?
You seem to be undermining the Vancouver players, when it comes to handling the puck, as well as making physical plays.
Canucks had defensive lapses, as well as puckhandling lapses, which resulted in poor goals, which led to poor games. That is why the Canucks lost in playoff rounds for the last three years. Chicago was excellent at taking advantage of Vancouver's defensive lapses, which left Luongo all alone taking on three young, dynamic Chicago forwards. Boston took advantage of Vancouver's defensive lapses. LA accomplished as well, not to mention maintaining solid defense.

There have been physical exchanges between the Canucks and their previously notorious postseason opponents; however, physicality does not amount to the very reason Canucks lost composure, resulting in playoff eliminations.
  • 0
Posted Image

#530 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,616 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:46 PM

I'm kind of disappointed about some of the trade proposals in this thread, after that dominant performance last night I was riding a high, but you all seem to think we need to revamp the roster.

We are extremely deep. At this point we do not need roster players, if we have secondary scoring like we do now without Kesler or Booth in the lineup, on top of having a strong D core, I don't really see a place where we need to improve. I say keep Luongo in the shortened season, it adds greatly to the stability of this roster, when our back up plays the rest of the team doesn't have to compensate.

We don't need another left d (Gardiner), as we have 5 that are more than capable. We don't need another centre (Johansson), as he would be forced into a third line role behind Sedin and Kesler. We don't need another winger, as the options we have with Hansen, Higgins, Burrows, Raymond, Kassian, and Booth are plentiful. In all honesty I can't see how a rookie or young player from a worse team crack our roster.

I also don't like the idea of messing with the chemistry we have in the locker room right now. Every one knows their role, and if we were to acquire someone that could bump one of our current guys down the depth chart I feel that hurts the composition of our roster. For example, last year with the Hodgson trade and the acquisition of Pahlsson, we moved from having 3 scoring lines to 2 and a checking line. Trying to construct a checking line with 20 games left in the season, I felt hurt us badly heading into the playoffs - where we needed secondary scoring.

So let's not trade Luongo for anything that could damage our current composition, trade him for prospects and picks. We will have to get under the cap next year anyway, might as well start with some potential ELCs.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#531 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:48 PM

So, you're saying the Canucks did not exert any effort againat their opponents, because they were scared of them?
You seem to be undermining the Vancouver players, when it comes to handling the puck, as well as making physical plays.


I didn't say they didn't exert effort... Just that they were too scared to focus on making plays.

It was evident in a big stretch against Anaheim last night as well. Our defence rushed getting the pucks off their sticks in the D zone to be ready to spin away from hits. Our forwards dumped the puck from the neutral zone to avoid taking punishment along the boards. We win games like that when the refs call it tight and we end up with a lot of power plays. We lose games like that when the calls aren't made.

It isn't something that is unique to the Canucks... it is why teams love big bruising players, especially defencemen. It is a big reason a guy like Willie Mitchell often has a very good +/-. He makes skilled forwards worry about their health more than making the best pass possible. It is just how hockey is played...
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#532 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,166 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:53 PM

You are correct, GMDT does not trade away young players, especially for a position he isn't terribly weak in.
He got bend over with Huet so he is pretty reluctant with big goalie contracts.

You would be stressed to find any GM willing to part with grade A prospects for anything but grade A prospects.

The Value of the ELC of a talented player is far greater than a short term fix with a big contract.

The days of Milbury are over, people don't throw prospects and draft picks at Elite players in the 30+ range.


Posted Image

Posted Image

Yes(NTC) it is too much to ask. We(NTC) don't need Luo. Theodore(NTC) has been the only good thing in an injuy riddled start. He's doing an outstanding job and with Markstrom coming we have no reason to add Luo and trade Theodore(NTC ) and our prospects.

This is what you get when you sign a "franchise" player to 12yrs, then turn your back on him.


Luongo (NTC) will waive (NTC), therefore (NTC) relatively irrelevent.

Theodore (UFA/NTC) has been ok, but Theodore (UFA/36) may not re-sign/be re-signed in Florida next season. Is Clemmenson a starter? Clemmenson (no NTC/35) could also be moved. Markstrom (22) is not a sure thing, isn't NHL ready, and is injury prone (recurring knee problems). I love Eddie Lack (25), but it's still too early to determine that he is a future NHL starter - likewise with Markstrom (2-5-1) - not really tested as a NHL backup yet, let alone ready to be pencilled in as a starter.

Edited by oldnews, 26 January 2013 - 11:57 PM.

  • 1

#533 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:54 PM

Well, then you are just plain wrong.

We lost in the last two playoffs because our players were pushed around and punished to the point they stopped making plays and started getting rid of the puck as soon as they could. We didn't score because our forwards were spending all their time with their heads on a swivel avoiding hits rather than looking for scoring chances.

Also, your logic saying that Raymond is unproven kind of defeats your own point about him being untradeable. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth on that one.

You also need to spend some time reading and comprehending the posts that you quote. You say that Raymond is more valuable to us than to other teams... as I already pointed out (and as most folks are aware) we have a couple of non-physical players already in our top 6, so another much less skilled one is not actually of more use to us than other teams. He will be even less use when he is shuffled down to the 3rd line when Booth/Kesler return.

Kassian has taken Raymond's top 6 role and is likely to keep it for most of the season, if he slows down scoring... he still serves a very useful purpose on the ice.


Your just plain wrong, you can say we were beaten up against Boston, but we scored a grand total of 8 goals in 7 games, and the Sedins were in on atleast 5 or 6 of them. And once again the Boston series is overplayed, the only time we didn't match there physicality is after the whistle, check the stats sheets, we probably had 3 or more games where we had just as many hits as they did, the Boston point again being overplayed.

Against LA we weren't bruised and beaten, we didn't score, it's that simple.

Now we finally have a player showing what he can be, playing in a top 6 role and producing and you want to get rid of that? For what?

I think you are miss interpreting my value comment. If your another GM seeing Raymond play, are you suddenly jumping on the bandwagon that he will continue this all season and he is 100% without a doubt the exact same player he was in 09/10? Of course not.

Right now he is playing great for us, but we are what 4 games in? His value isn't much higher than it was. Other GM's are looking at this saying it could turn at any second and his value would once again be low. Right now we have to keep him, if he can continue this then maybe he can yield us a player who is worthwhile, but if he does return to the 09/10 form for the rest of the year, why would you want to trade him?

Considering our secondary scoring has been our Achilles heel in back to back playoff years and he finally provides what we are missing.

Your even jumping your gun on the Kassian comment, and I'm a huge Kassian fan who has been an advocate of the trade for a long time, he could easily go cold and find himself on the 3rd line (where he can still be effective) but we would then need a top 6 forward.


Putting all that aside, what do you propose we could get? Give me an idea of what we are actually talking about, so we can properly judge whether it would be accepted, or if it makes sense from our side.
  • 0

zackass.png


#534 allkill326

allkill326

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,270 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:54 PM

I didn't say they didn't exert effort... Just that they were too scared to focus on making plays.

It was evident in a big stretch against Anaheim last night as well. Our defence rushed getting the pucks off their sticks in the D zone to be ready to spin away from hits. Our forwards dumped the puck from the neutral zone to avoid taking punishment along the boards. We win games like that when the refs call it tight and we end up with a lot of power plays. We lose games like that when the calls aren't made.

It isn't something that is unique to the Canucks... it is why teams love big bruising players, especially defencemen. It is a big reason a guy like Willie Mitchell often has a very good +/-. He makes skilled forwards worry about their health more than making the best pass possible. It is just how hockey is played...


Dumping pucks and avoiding hits are strategic maneuvers to avoid loss of morale and to "sneak into the opponents' zone" to gain possession. It is true the Canucks lack the skill level, compared to those of other NHL teams; however, that does not mean the alternative strategy they are using to gain Presidents' Trophy-quality puck possession is a way to avoid hits for fear of becoming bruised and injured by other players.

Isn't it true the Canucks have a unique way of scoring? Hockey isn't just about hits and strength; it's also about puckhandling and creativity, hence the Sedins' way of scoring, which has made the entire team productive for the past few years.

With Schneider solid in net and Canucks' defence and offence refined, don't you think we could easily beat Boston, despite having Rask or the ego-minded Thomas?
  • 0
Posted Image

#535 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:55 PM

I'm kind of disappointed about some of the trade proposals in this thread, after that dominant performance last night I was riding a high, but you all seem to think we need to revamp the roster.

We are extremely deep. At this point we do not need roster players, if we have secondary scoring like we do now without Kesler or Booth in the lineup, on top of having a strong D core, I don't really see a place where we need to improve. I say keep Luongo in the shortened season, it adds greatly to the stability of this roster, when our back up plays the rest of the team doesn't have to compensate.

We don't need another left d (Gardiner), as we have 5 that are more than capable. We don't need another centre (Johansson), as he would be forced into a third line role behind Sedin and Kesler. We don't need another winger, as the options we have with Hansen, Higgins, Burrows, Raymond, Kassian, and Booth are plentiful. In all honesty I can't see how a rookie or young player from a worse team crack our roster.

I also don't like the idea of messing with the chemistry we have in the locker room right now. Every one knows their role, and if we were to acquire someone that could bump one of our current guys down the depth chart I feel that hurts the composition of our roster. For example, last year with the Hodgson trade and the acquisition of Pahlsson, we moved from having 3 scoring lines to 2 and a checking line. Trying to construct a checking line with 20 games left in the season, I felt hurt us badly heading into the playoffs - where we needed secondary scoring.

So let's not trade Luongo for anything that could damage our current composition, trade him for prospects and picks. We will have to get under the cap next year anyway, might as well start with some potential ELCs.


I pretty much agree with everything here, although I do think we should trade Luongo for Picks/Prospects (when the right deal comes along) as soon as we can.
  • 0

zackass.png


#536 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:58 PM

Dumping pucks and avoiding hits are strategic maneuvers to avoid loss of morale and to "sneak into the opponents' zone" to gain possession. It is true the Canucks lack the skill level, compared to those of other NHL teams; however, that does not mean the alternative strategy they are using to gain Presidents' Trophy-quality puck possession is a way to avoid hits for fear of becoming bruised and injured by other players.

Isn't it true the Canucks have a unique way of scoring? Hockey isn't just about hits and strength; it's also about puckhandling and creativity, hence the Sedins' way of scoring, which has made the entire team productive for the past few years.

With Schneider solid in net and Canucks' defence and offence refined, don't you think we could easily beat Boston, despite having Rask or the ego-minded Thomas?


I think if we got more consistent and better performances from everyone not named Sedin, and if we were healthy, that we would have beaten Boston.

I think the deep team we have right now, with the unexpected players (Kassian, Raymond, Schroeder) playing and producing the way they are, and getting the goaltending we are, that we are very much capable of beating any team in a 7 game series, whether that be Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, or whoever.
  • 0

zackass.png


#537 Merci

Merci

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:00 AM

I'm kind of disappointed about some of the trade proposals in this thread, after that dominant performance last night I was riding a high, but you all seem to think we need to revamp the roster.

We are extremely deep. At this point we do not need roster players, if we have secondary scoring like we do now without Kesler or Booth in the lineup, on top of having a strong D core, I don't really see a place where we need to improve. I say keep Luongo in the shortened season, it adds greatly to the stability of this roster, when our back up plays the rest of the team doesn't have to compensate.

We don't need another left d (Gardiner), as we have 5 that are more than capable. We don't need another centre (Johansson), as he would be forced into a third line role behind Sedin and Kesler. We don't need another winger, as the options we have with Hansen, Higgins, Burrows, Raymond, Kassian, and Booth are plentiful. In all honesty I can't see how a rookie or young player from a worse team crack our roster.

I also don't like the idea of messing with the chemistry we have in the locker room right now. Every one knows their role, and if we were to acquire someone that could bump one of our current guys down the depth chart I feel that hurts the composition of our roster. For example, last year with the Hodgson trade and the acquisition of Pahlsson, we moved from having 3 scoring lines to 2 and a checking line. Trying to construct a checking line with 20 games left in the season, I felt hurt us badly heading into the playoffs - where we needed secondary scoring.

So let's not trade Luongo for anything that could damage our current composition, trade him for prospects and picks. We will have to get under the cap next year anyway, might as well start with some potential ELCs.


Wow fantastic post agree alot.

Maybe just maybe if a team gets desperate enough trade Luongo now. Maybe if florida is offering Gudbranson and Upshall/Mathhias/Bjustad

Otherwise if Schneider's plays hot in the playoffs and we don't win the cup we know what Luongo should try and fetch us.
  • 0

vPTJpcO.jpg


#538 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,391 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:05 AM

Posted Image

Posted Image



Luongo (NTC) will waive (NTC), therefore (NTC) relatively irrelevent.

Theodore (UFA/NTC) has been ok, but Theodore (UFA/36) may not re-sign/be re-signed in Florida next season. Is Clemmenson a starter? Clemmenson (no NTC/35) could also be moved. Markstrom (22) is not a sure thing, isn't NHL ready, and is injury prone (recurring knee problems). I love Eddie Lack (25), but it's still too early to determine that he is a future NHL starter - likewise with Markstrom (2-5-1) - not really tested as a NHL backup yet, let alone ready to be pencilled in as a starter.


:lol: Very Clever.

(+1)
  • 0

zackass.png


#539 Trebreh

Trebreh

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,765 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:05 AM

MG can sit and relax this week because i have a feeling one of Washington or Florida might be calling him soon.

:bigblush:
  • 0

#540 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,453 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:06 AM

Rodin on the 1st?

I would go:

Gaunce - Kesler - Kassian
Jensen - Schroeder - ?
Rodin - ? - Wilson

? can be filled by the draft/trading for young players or signings, possibly even having some players (Hansen, Raymond, Booth) Stick around.


Well, my reasoning is that Rodin needs some size and experience to insulate him and he's been more successful as a passer than a shooter at the AHL level so far. In this entirely hypothetical scenario (which is completely unrealistic since it's basically projecting a 100% success rate in terms of prospect development), I'm trying to spread out the talent instead of loading up one line. Gaunce is a prototypical checking line centre, imo, hence having him anchor the third line (which has historically been known as a "shutdown" line).
  • 0

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.





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.