fourminute Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 having two most lazy and overpaid goalies thomas and dipietro garth snow o man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 The Isles essentially took Dipietro for: Luongo Oli Jokinen Dany Heatly Where could they have been now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allkill326 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 A lot of choked play-off runs EDIT: and a mediocre prospect pool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 That's what happens when a desperate team desperately needs to get better and burns yet another rookie who was brought up too soon. Countless times have teams brought up players that should have been groomed in the minors first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 It's not just that. How many forwards do you have on a team? 12. How many goalies? 2. One barely plays. If your star forward falls off and isn't a legitimate 1st line player later in the contract, they can usually be a serviceable 2nd line guy. If your #1 goalie falls off you have a backup that isn't playing that is eating up 5.3 million dollars of cap, and nobody will take him in a trade. That's the added risk to signing a goalie to a long term contract. Not to mention the hot and cold nature of the position. You can be the best goalie in the league one year and then the worst the next (Elliott). As for the Schneider/DiPietro value thing, the 31 million that they'll have to use to buy him out is not worth losing Hamonic and Niederreiter. They'll be able to give up less elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyzer Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Mike Millbury was not a smart man AND he's an anchor for the sports section of NBC. Pretty sure I could be a better GM than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Lol. Choked. You realize Luongo brought us to Game 7? Man, are you even a Canucks fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 yeah because signing a rookie sensation to a 15 year static contract is the same as signing a proven #1 elite goalie to a structured front loaded 12 year contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 So giving forwards a longer contract is OK since they have a lower risk of injury than goaltenders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Spin it any way you like. Luongo brought us to game 7 or Luongo won 3 and lost 4 games all on his own. This doesn't even account for the 3 series against Chicago which could easily be considered a choke. You seem like more of a Luongo fan than Canucks fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 lol. you are probably one of those guys who would bitch at someone who gives you 10 bucks for free because another guy is giving others 11 dollars. luongo stole 3 games for us in the final, but apparently it wasn't enough for you and he's the sole reason why we didn't have a cup 2 years ago. to simplify your mentality, choked = lose in playoff. bravo bro, bravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyosama Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 And when has Luongo ever fallen off? I really don't get your point. The fact of the matter is that Gillis signed Luongo to such a long contract due to his consistency and durability and the fact that goalies can play into their 40's. Just look at Hasek, Brodeur and Belfour. Forwards are risky due to the fact that they are more exposed to injuries because of hits along with wear and tear. You rarely see forwards playing great into their 40's with the exception of Selanne. IF Luongo gets traded, he will still be playing in 6-7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 I never said he has. I'm saying there's added risk to signing a goalie long-term, and I gave my reasoning behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 I giggle every time I hear about this <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 lol. you are probably one of those guys who would bitch at someone who gives you 10 bucks for free because another guy is giving others 11 dollars. luongo stole 3 games for us in the final, but apparently it wasn't enough for you and he's the sole reason why we didn't have a cup 2 years ago. to simplify your mentality, choked = lose in playoff. bravo bro, bravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 That's where your'e mistaken. In my honest opinion, choking is playing great and then playing terribly and losing games by lopsided scores resulting in playoff elimination. We have all seen that in 3 (very nearly 4) series starting in 2009. Luongo is branded an elite goaltender, sometimes he's plays like it, sometimes the very opposite. The same recycled excuses (we didn't score enough, our defense sucks, we were injured, etc.) for his poor performances cant be used every year, can they? In reality they cant. In reality he has choked in some very big games and that's all there is to it. He's not the only goaltender to lose his composure, but it seems he's done it the most in recent memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Sound and rational thoughts. I don't know which Luongo some of these folks have been watching in recent years...but he craps the bed in big situations so often he oughta be sponsored by Depends Adult Diapers (with the exception of the Olympics). I for one am sick of the flimsy excuses when Luongo has a bad game..(injuries, defense sucks, offensively challenged) I am a Luongo fan...but he is among the easiest goaltenders to rattle...to get under the skin of...that I have seen in quite a while....and on the occasions he loses his composure and lets in a soft goal...that's usually the start of a bad night for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 yeah because signing a rookie sensation to a 15 year static contract is the same as signing a proven #1 elite goalie to a structured front loaded 12 year contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Spin it any way you like. Luongo brought us to game 7 or Luongo won 3 and lost 4 games all on his own. This doesn't even account for the 3 series against Chicago which could easily be considered a choke. You seem like more of a Luongo fan than Canucks fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 Is there really any point in turning a DiPietro thread into another "Luongo is amazing"... "No Luongo Sucks" argument? There are a lot of different places to post that which are a little more on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.