Edlerberry Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 Where do you get 40.2 ? Drops off to 3.3 then minimal after that. All salaries are ridiculous in the NHL, but having the most important position filled for 80%+ of the games for about 10% of the salary cap with a top 10 talent is a 'good investment' comparatively. Even at 6.7m for the next 5 (not 6) years, its still competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 I think you've missed it. If Lou did not get outplayed by Thomas, never mind Schneider, he might be worth his contract. Then we would not be in this position? Weber did not sign a big deal and lose his job to an up and coming player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 $6.7 mill in real salary for 6 years. Sorry, added this year Where do you get 40.2 ? Drops off to 3.3 then minimal after that. All salaries are ridiculous in the NHL, but having the most important position filled for 80%+ of the games for about 10% of the salary cap with a top 10 talent is a 'good investment' comparatively. Even at 6.7m for the next 5 (not 6) years, its still competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 This thread isn't over yet. Not much season left and the playoffs are only 2 months. Still lots of pages in this thread.....we should be judicious with our posting to squeeze it in under 100 pages. You'd think that would be easy since every possible thing has already been said. Now it's just a battle of wills and egos. I'm not sure this thread is about Luongo anymore. It's more about CDC relationships. This thread is the chick flick of CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 I guess melting down doesn't help.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 Look at it differently > an argument I posed for SK; Forbes has the St Louis Blues net value as $125 odd million. Now owners (not GM's) sign players with a view to their potential to generate a profit for their invesment. If your an investor; do you buy Weber or the St Louis Blues respectively at $110 and $125 million? In reality, Nashville probably will regret that decision as well. Do you offer Lou his $64 million again? Its $64 million, not $5.3 which is how everybody jutifies a bad investment. Think about it like its your money... And then look at it in the current context. Do you give him $40.2 mill the next 6 years? I believe its possible for teams that are young and have much of their future already set up; and Lou wins you 7 to 10 play off series the next 4 years? This when you might currently track to win 2 or 3? And sell out a rink thats not selling... It does leave a market, yes Florida, NYI, perhaps Washington? Long shot Edmonton... Whi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BertuzziJr 2.0 Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 From what I had heard they generally thought a deal was going to be made. I guess summer it is then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 I guess melting down doesn't help.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 I think you'd have to look at it differently, the way I assume CH101 and apollo look at it,. If the Canucks had won game 7, because we scored a few goals, then Schneider no matter how well he played would not have the chance to unseat Luongo. Lou's contract would be the furthest issue from anyone's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 What? Wasn't Sundin already back in Sweden when Lou signed his deal? Not relevent, I don' think anyway. The best message is doing what makes the team better for yor investment. Nashville might have matched Weber's deal to show Nashville fans they were legit. But think of what kind of team they coul have put together for the $20 something million paid in the last 10 months? They could have signed Jagr and Semin, plus traded two of the 1 st round picks they received for an alternate all star D. They'd still have change in cap (They have $16 mill space even with Weber), compensation picks and $90 mill less in contract commitments. That would have sent just as strong a message, even added some entertainment value. Unless everyone thinks the Trotz trap compares with the Grand Ol Opre? I understand your argument and Nashville might very well regret that contract. I suggest how ever that Nashville did not match the Philly offer sheet strictly because of perceived value in Weber. They had already lost Suter and Weber leaving might have started an exodus. Erat apparently wanted out and that is why Poile traded him. In Lou's case Gillis signed him as he was seen as the top goalie available and Gillis was changing the Van culture. Lou's signing was a concrete signal to Van players that management wanted a winner. It told UFA's like Sundin that Van was serious. Yes there has to be value in contracts but I suggest that other factors are involved as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 That's exactly what it is. Like a God hitting bull's eye from across the Universe. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 I think you'd have to look at it differently, the way I assume CH101 and apollo look at it,. If the Canucks had won game 7, because we scored a few goals, then Schneider no matter how well he played would not have the chance to unseat Luongo. Lou's contract would be the furthest issue from anyone's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 the issue was not game 7 i find it odd people keep thinking that was the issue the issue was 1. Letting Chi back into the series down 3-0 with by letting his head go and therefore causing us to have 3 more game of tough hockey to deal with 2. Games 3 and 4 in Boston, as above, letting the bear back into the series when we had our heels on their throat. this is why few teams are lining up for him and why we are going with schnieds it is his mental side and ability to shut the door when we NEED him to steal one, not that he cant steal games but its WHEN WE need a steal, he has consistently flopped. that is the difference between a very good goalie and a hall of famer, cup winner. why can't people realize that I love what Lou did for this team and city and he deserves our respect but time to move on, he clearly wants to given his presser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BertuzziJr 2.0 Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 No no and no. The Canucks were decimated on defense and did some serious faux pas that cost the Canucks a Cup, let alone lack of scoring. Take Hamhuis. He makes that hip check on Lucic and the series is over. He breaks ribs and the Canucks are out a top D. Burrows plays the game, the Bs are focussing on containing him. Burrows bites a finger, the Bs focus their anger and gel together. Daniel Sedin defends himself or is defended in his bitch slapping on Nation TV by Pinocchio, the Canucks save face. Kesler was in efficient by then, so were Ehhoff, Edler and so on. Rome hits Horton one second earlier and a historical suspension is avoided. Then we blame Luongo for not showing up when he stood on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 I think you'd have to look at it differently, the way I assume CH101 and apollo look at it,. If the Canucks had won game 7, because we scored a few goals, then Schneider no matter how well he played would not have the chance to unseat Luongo. Lou's contract would be the furthest issue from anyone's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 As things start to fall apart; its when teams need a guy like their goalie to play lights out & reignite some confidence and fight. It did not have to be the goalie, a superstar prob would have needed to surface. Kesler and Manny were hurt, Hank was taking D zone draws against Lucic/Krecji. Not his normal O'zone realm of comfort. Considering our scrambled roles, the Sedin's played hard, but were much less likely to accomplish what they normally do. Between game 3,4,6 & 7 we needed Lou to steal us a game. Was being a superstar when it mattered too much to expect? Any one of those 4 games... If Lou had played hard, and held it together, I still would not be critiquing him even had we lost. The team did sort of fall apart around him. But he was distracted by not having his tires pumped. And he got lit up. He did not even offer the team the confidence to find another level of fight. I don't blame Lou for us losing that series. But he does not deserve his contract either. He was being paid like Crosby, or Forsberg and the other true superstars of the league. And that is why the contract is such an anchor! No no and no. The Canucks were decimated on defense and did some serious faux pas that cost the Canucks a Cup, let alone lack of scoring. Take Hamhuis. He makes that hip check on Lucic and the series is over. He breaks ribs and the Canucks are out a top D. Burrows plays the game, the Bs are focussing on containing him. Burrows bites a finger, the Bs focus their anger and gel together. Daniel Sedin defends himself or is defended in his bitch slapping on Nation TV by Pinocchio, the Canucks save face. Kesler was in efficient by then, so were Ehhoff, Edler and so on. Rome hits Horton one second earlier and a historical suspension is avoided. Then we blame Luongo for not showing up when he stood on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Come on man no blame to Luongo? I think he has had truly amazing moments in the playoffs without a question, but he has also had some pretty large meltdowns. Did the team always have him back? No obviously not, but he also didn't help his case much either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Doctor Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 His contract didn't suck when he signed it. It's not Schnieders fault he played better. Suck it up Gillis, move Luongo for peanuts. Just move him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Burrows 14 Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Remember when people used to think we could get the 5th overall pick, jake gardiner and more for luongo? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Remember when people used to think we could get the 5th overall pick, jake gardiner and more for luongo? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.