Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Examining Luongo contract extension (2009)


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Socrates

Socrates

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 10

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:20 AM

Thought it might be interesting to talk about the motivating factors that led to the 12-year contract extension signed in September 2009. Below are my initial thoughts.

Administrators - if the topic belongs elsewhere, please move it as fit.

Gillis
  • Luongo had a 33-13-7 prior season, with a franchise record in terms of shootouts (9). For Vancouver, this looked pretty awesome given previous experiences
  • Luongo had come out of a $7M salary and was set to make $7.5M in the new season. Gillis probably wanted to minimize cap hit for the following 5-7 years (Luongo's projected prime), while discounting the following years (he may have bet on the cap RISING over the years). Salary-wise, he stayed competitive up-front, while paying RL much less in later years
Luongo
  • he cited the Sedins committing long-term as a solid reason to commit for that long. Believable, but they only got 5-year extensions
  • he also said that his reduced cap hit could be used to add other valuable players to the roster in order to prepare a run at the Cup - I trust that too
  • with his family in Florida and unwilling to move to Vancouver, this must have been a tough choice
While I cannot blame Gillis for his general logic, I believe he should have probably negotiated a shorter deal for the benefit of this organization. He jumped the gun, especially given Luongo's performance in the Playoffs - the Canucks had just been taken out by the Hawks that year with a ton of goals against, so he did have reasons to ponder his next move.

As for Luongo, I tend to believe that he was willing to help the organization with the reduced cap-hit, but also after the money (locking in $64M until he is 42 years old). IMO, the latter reason was somewhat more important, considering he was going to be away from his family for a long time, knowing how much they love Florida.

Objectively, the two may have had enough good intentions to make a good deal for both parties. I am only faulting Gillis for not seeing Luongo's issues in Playoff games and Luongo for being perhaps a little too money oriented. A shorter contract would have followed a "trust but verify" logic.

Any thoughts anyone?
  • 0

#2 CanucksFanMike

CanucksFanMike

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,632 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 11

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:24 AM

Everyone makes mistakes.... Gillis made a mistake here

That is the only way to put it
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#3 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,957 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:35 AM

If he had negotiated a shorter deal, the cap hit wouldn't have been as good. That's why they're back diving contracts and the NHL has ruled them out in the new CBA.

What would our team have been like in 2010/2011 if Luongo had had a $6.75M (or more!) cap hit? Would we have had the pieces necessary to go to the SCF? People talk about taking risks in trading some of the future (prospects, high draft picks) for deadline rentals in the hopes that it could lead to a Stanley Cup. What was the Luongo deal if not a risk that could impact the future more than the present?

Here's what I don't get: you don't see people complaining about Zetterberg, Hossa or Franzen's back diving deals (those were the original 3 back diving contracts). Would people devalue them considerably if they were looking at trading for them? Has Luongo been worse than any of them to devalue him considerably more?

Edited by elvis15, 01 April 2013 - 09:43 AM.

  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#4 Bring_Back_Bertuzzi

Bring_Back_Bertuzzi

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 13

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:42 AM

he did this when cory schneider was not a starter. luongo is still a great goalie cory schneider is just younger and better

Edited by mr.perfect101, 01 April 2013 - 09:42 AM.

  • 0

luo_sig_with_words.jpg


#5 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,595 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:48 AM

If he had negotiated a shorter deal, the cap hit wouldn't have been as good. That's why they're back diving contracts and the NHL has ruled them out in the new CBA.

Here's what I don't get: you don't see people complaining about Zetterberg, Hossa or Franzen's back diving deals (those were the original 3 back diving contracts). Would people devalue them considerably if they were looking at trading for them? Has Luongo been worse than any of them to devalue him considerably more?


Those people who complains doesnt understand the concept of cap hits or math in general.... It's the same group of people who yelled " luongo and his 10 mil cap!!" A couple season ago.

The thing is, the type of contract that luongo signed was so good that its considered a loophole..... A 5.3 million o cap hit for luongo is a great deal and I won't cost the club much at his last two seasons if his performance decreases ( sendin him to the ahl)

The only thing that's preventing him being trade was his Ntc and that luongo can dictates that city he wants to go while mg wants max return... That makes him almost untradable like iggy unless you want minimal return......
  • 1

#6 Foo202

Foo202

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:49 AM

At the time, the contract made sense, Luongo was a consistently a superb goalie in the regular season and usually had a spot int he top 5 in GAA and Save%, and the only two knocks against him in the playoffs were the Chicago series in 09, and the final goal against Anaheim in 07, with strong plays in all the other 3 playoff series he's been in.

The length had a bit to do with Luongo's vanity, he wanted to be the highest paid goaltender in the league, which is why he had that initial season at 10mil and needed to have the long, back diving contract to balance it out, but the contract had outs. Seven years into the deal, the canucks have an opportunity to move Luongo despite his NTC to any team, which it being a back diving contract would make him a commodity for struggling franchises that could lower there team salary while still staying above the minimum salary bar.

Also, there is still the option, at the time, that the canucks could buy luongo out for the last few years for the 2/3 of the remainder of the contract over twice the years.
  • 0

#7 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,595 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:54 AM

At the time, the contract made sense, Luongo was a consistently a superb goalie in the regular season and usually had a spot int he top 5 in GAA and Save%, and the only two knocks against him in the playoffs were the Chicago series in 09, and the final goal against Anaheim in 07, with strong plays in all the other 3 playoff series he's been in.

The length had a bit to do with Luongo's vanity, he wanted to be the highest paid goaltender in the league, which is why he had that initial season at 10mil and needed to have the long, back diving contract to balance it out, but the contract had outs. Seven years into the deal, the canucks have an opportunity to move Luongo despite his NTC to any team, which it being a back diving contract would make him a commodity for struggling franchises that could lower there team salary while still staying above the minimum salary bar.

Also, there is still the option, at the time, that the canucks could buy luongo out for the last few years for the 2/3 of the remainder of the contract over twice the years.


And this is why I think so many people doesn't understand htf does cap hit works ....... Most of them are so misinformed that they would end up chasing luongo out I town.

The reason why luongo got paid 10 mil in the first year was because the team need to pay his salary in a front load manner first! Then they would use the length and the final two years of the contract to decrease the cap hit dramatically.

Edited by Piggy1983, 01 April 2013 - 09:56 AM.

  • 1

#8 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:02 AM

The only problem I have with his deal is that it includes a NTC. You simply cannot include a NTC with a deal of that length.

That part negates the positives of the deal.
  • 2

#9 PrimeMinisterBure

PrimeMinisterBure

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 12

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:07 AM

If he had negotiated a shorter deal, the cap hit wouldn't have been as good. That's why they're back diving contracts and the NHL has ruled them out in the new CBA.

What would our team have been like in 2010/2011 if Luongo had had a $6.75M (or more!) cap hit? Would we have had the pieces necessary to go to the SCF? People talk about taking risks in trading some of the future (prospects, high draft picks) for deadline rentals in the hopes that it could lead to a Stanley Cup. What was the Luongo deal if not a risk that could impact the future more than the present?

Here's what I don't get: you don't see people complaining about Zetterberg, Hossa or Franzen's back diving deals (those were the original 3 back diving contracts). Would people devalue them considerably if they were looking at trading for them? Has Luongo been worse than any of them to devalue him considerably more?


Yes.
  • 0

#10 Neil HD

Neil HD

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:07 AM

I still wonder to this day if a $6 million over 8 or 9 years was ever on the table at some point.

It would have given us $.666M less cap (~1 depth fwd) to sign players for our SCF year, but it may have also given MG more justification for a high trade return than the existing contract.
  • 0

#11 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,595 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:18 AM

Yes.


One seasin after luongo single handedly push the team to 7 games in the scf, and here we are having discussions of how luongo had been worse than other players......

The fan base in Vancouver is so uneducated and hostile ( some of them) that its very embarrassing to see they call themselves fans...
  • 3

#12 Merci

Merci

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:23 AM

ANd poeple wonder why I hate Luongo.

Greedy greaseball who imploded when we needed him most.
  • 1

Keslerific, on 25 May 2014 - 4:47 PM, said:

Gaunce is wayy cooler though, Gaunce is the kind of guy you want to bring with you to Costco

 

vPTJpcO.jpg


#13 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,977 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:31 AM

20 teams in the NHL would have picked him up for the 7-8.5 million dollar hit.

The contract was fantastic... one of Gillis few good moves
  • 3
WHATCHU GONNA DO WHEN MILLERMANIA RUNS WILDDDD ON YOU?!

#14 Bleed Blue and Green

Bleed Blue and Green

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,133 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 04

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:41 AM

Don't forget we gave him the "C" as an extra incentive to re-sign with us as well

Posted Image
  • 0

DeeCanucksBlog7_zps935c66c6.jpg


#15 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,957 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:51 AM

Those people who complains doesnt understand the concept of cap hits or math in general.... It's the same group of people who yelled " luongo and his 10 mil cap!!" A couple season ago.

The thing is, the type of contract that luongo signed was so good that its considered a loophole..... A 5.3 million o cap hit for luongo is a great deal and I won't cost the club much at his last two seasons if his performance decreases ( sendin him to the ahl)

The only thing that's preventing him being trade was his Ntc and that luongo can dictates that city he wants to go while mg wants max return... That makes him almost untradable like iggy unless you want minimal return......

Generally agreed with all that, but I don't think Luongo has limited the Canucks to a handful of teams.

With Iggy, we had the leak of the teams he said he'd accept a trade to, and even then he declined one of them. With Luongo, it's repeatedly been stated he hasn't been asked for a list of teams nor has he given one.

At best, there's the rumour he declined a deal to Toronto as a Florida deal was also supposedly imminent. When the Florida deal didn't go through, the Leafs deal was also gone, so Luongo would be open to more options. But then that rumour was floated then sunk as false at various times (although it seems to have surfaced again).


...
Also, there is still the option, at the time, that the canucks could buy luongo out for the last few years for the 2/3 of the remainder of the contract over twice the years.

Actually, for the amnesty buyouts the payment schedule doesn't vary from the term of the contract. So buying out a deal wtih 6 years left on the contract would be paid out in 2/3rds the worth over those 6 years (rather than 12).

Not that it matters, since it doesn't affect the cap anyway. Regular buyouts still have the 2/3rds, double the term rule.

The only problem I have with his deal is that it includes a NTC. You simply cannot include a NTC with a deal of that length.

That part negates the positives of the deal.

You don't get the reduced cap hit generally without the NTC though. Not that it's that much of an issue anyway since Luongo's agreed to be open to a deal for the betterment of the team already.

Yes.

Thank you for your well thought out and detailed post. Would read again.

Edited by elvis15, 01 April 2013 - 10:55 AM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#16 kilgore

kilgore

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,415 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:23 AM

I think it was a bit of greed on both sides.

Luongo was regarded, and certainly regarded himself, as one of the top shelf goaltenders in the NHL at the time.
The OP makes a point that it would take good $ to uproot himself from Florida.

Gillis represented a team that was a "goalie graveyard". IMO this was unfairly blamed on the fans. We were just cursed with only getting spotty good tending through the years with a couple of brief peaks with King Richard and Kirk McLean. We FINALLY had one of the top rated goalies that actually was willing to move up to the Great Wet North.

We would pay anything. And we did. Lu's agent knew he had us by the balls. Gillis wanted to make a splash and was willing to commit to a long long term to get it done. Lu was greedy for the $ (which I don't blame him for at the time). Gillis knew the fans were greedy for a bonafide #1 for a change (which we damn well deserved).

It was a huge gamble and yes, Gillis should have considered Lu's first playoff meltdown with Chicago the Spring before. But who would fathom he'd repeat that behavior for every playoff after. In Florida he never had to deal with playoff pressures where the goalie HAS to be the best player on the ice every night. More important he has to be able to retain that "not to high, not to low" mentality even after a bad goal.

It was a huge gamble. It could have paid off......but it didn't. Vancouver fans are not content with a great regular season goalie. We want the Cup.
  • 1

#17 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,977 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 01 April 2013 - 12:54 PM

I think it was a bit of greed on both sides.

Luongo was regarded, and certainly regarded himself, as one of the top shelf goaltenders in the NHL at the time.
The OP makes a point that it would take good $ to uproot himself from Florida.

Gillis represented a team that was a "goalie graveyard". IMO this was unfairly blamed on the fans. We were just cursed with only getting spotty good tending through the years with a couple of brief peaks with King Richard and Kirk McLean. We FINALLY had one of the top rated goalies that actually was willing to move up to the Great Wet North.

We would pay anything. And we did. Lu's agent knew he had us by the balls. Gillis wanted to make a splash and was willing to commit to a long long term to get it done. Lu was greedy for the $ (which I don't blame him for at the time). Gillis knew the fans were greedy for a bonafide #1 for a change (which we damn well deserved).

It was a huge gamble and yes, Gillis should have considered Lu's first playoff meltdown with Chicago the Spring before. But who would fathom he'd repeat that behavior for every playoff after. In Florida he never had to deal with playoff pressures where the goalie HAS to be the best player on the ice every night. More important he has to be able to retain that "not to high, not to low" mentality even after a bad goal.

It was a huge gamble. It could have paid off......but it didn't. Vancouver fans are not content with a great regular season goalie. We want the Cup.


It did pay off. He carried the team to game 7 of the finals and had two shutouts in the final.

What didn't pay off was the team barely averaging over one goal per game ... 8 in 7 games if I'm not mistaking.
  • 0
WHATCHU GONNA DO WHEN MILLERMANIA RUNS WILDDDD ON YOU?!

#18 kilgore

kilgore

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,415 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 01:59 PM

It did pay off. He carried the team to game 7 of the finals and had two shutouts in the final.

What didn't pay off was the team barely averaging over one goal per game ... 8 in 7 games if I'm not mistaking.


You have to consider what it does mentally to group of forwards when they've lost respect for the ability of their goaltender to be consistent behind them. Already mentally and physically exhausted and battered and to watch 1...2...or 3 weak goals go in behind them in succession just sucks the energy out of even the most talented goal scorers. They then play paranoid. The D is afraid to rush the puck or take any chances moving up into the play.

And is not so much letting in one weak goal here or there. Its having the mentality to forget it and jump back to being the best goalie on the ice. An ability that was painfully absent from Lu's game. Maybe he's learned. Maybe his new coaching drills in the lock-out has instilled better habits which would result in better confidence after a weak goal. Maybe. But for me, I've given up hope on Lu and just can't sit through another gut wrenching spectacle like the first periods of games 6 and 7 of 2011.
  • 2

#19 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,589 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:00 PM

Any thoughts anyone?

I like your methods.
  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#20 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,589 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:14 PM

If he had negotiated a shorter deal, the cap hit wouldn't have been as good. That's why they're back diving contracts and the NHL has ruled them out in the new CBA.

What would our team have been like in 2010/2011 if Luongo had had a $6.75M (or more!) cap hit? Would we have had the pieces necessary to go to the SCF? People talk about taking risks in trading some of the future (prospects, high draft picks) for deadline rentals in the hopes that it could lead to a Stanley Cup. What was the Luongo deal if not a risk that could impact the future more than the present?

Here's what I don't get: you don't see people complaining about Zetterberg, Hossa or Franzen's back diving deals (those were the original 3 back diving contracts). Would people devalue them considerably if they were looking at trading for them? Has Luongo been worse than any of them to devalue him considerably more?

Two things.
If the term were shorter, the cap hit, while still being bigger than that of his previous contract, didn't have to be that brutal. In other words, they didn't have to start at $64 mil and reverse engineer the contract. They could have just said "fewer years, more gradient drop off", and come up with a number that worked.
The other thing is, comparing Luongo to Hossa, Zetterberg, and Franzen does not follow. Those three have demonstrated an ability to, for the most part, become superhuman in the playoffs. Luongo, while having flashes of brilliance, has a history of absolutely falling apart in the playoffs. People would jump over their mother to trade for any of those other 3 (maybe not Franzen).
Respectfully.
  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#21 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,977 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:18 PM

You have to consider what it does mentally to group of forwards when they've lost respect for the ability of their goaltender to be consistent behind them. Already mentally and physically exhausted and battered and to watch 1...2...or 3 weak goals go in behind them in succession just sucks the energy out of even the most talented goal scorers. They then play paranoid. The D is afraid to rush the puck or take any chances moving up into the play.

And is not so much letting in one weak goal here or there. Its having the mentality to forget it and jump back to being the best goalie on the ice. An ability that was painfully absent from Lu's game. Maybe he's learned. Maybe his new coaching drills in the lock-out has instilled better habits which would result in better confidence after a weak goal. Maybe. But for me, I've given up hope on Lu and just can't sit through another gut wrenching spectacle like the first periods of games 6 and 7 of 2011.


Would u have preferred we got swept in the 4 games but lost the games 3-2 3-1 or 3-0??
He stole three games, two of them he flat out stole.
  • 0
WHATCHU GONNA DO WHEN MILLERMANIA RUNS WILDDDD ON YOU?!

#22 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:23 PM

You have to consider what it does mentally to group of forwards when they've lost respect for the ability of their goaltender to be consistent behind them.


Luongo got a shutout in game 1 and had another strong effort in game 2's OT win

Then the entire team played like crap and got torched for 8 goals in game 3, where was there any reason for the forwards mentality to change based on games 1 on 2 when Luongo played so well? game 3 was scoreless after 1 as well so it's not like they were out of it right away either
  • 0

#23 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,595 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:31 PM

Two things.
If the term were shorter, the cap hit, while still being bigger than that of his previous contract, didn't have to be that brutal. In other words, they didn't have to start at $64 mil and reverse engineer the contract. They could have just said "fewer years, more gradient drop off", and come up with a number that worked.
The other thing is, comparing Luongo to Hossa, Zetterberg, and Franzen does not follow. Those three have demonstrated an ability to, for the most part, become superhuman in the playoffs. Luongo, while having flashes of brilliance, has a history of absolutely falling apart in the playoffs. People would jump over their mother to trade for any of those other 3 (maybe not Franzen).
Respectfully.


Then show us how the number of the contract would work if Gilis didn't give Luongo that contract. Note that he's coming off from a close to 7 mil of cap hit that year and was still dominating the league as a goalie. He's not going to accept a contract that pays him 1 million at the age of 37-38 since that's probably the time period you want to drop off his salary to offset the cap hit.

To sum up your first point, you will have to end up paying him at least 6.5 mil - 7.5 mil in cap hit if you want to sign him without giving him a front load type of contract, similar to what Rangers did.

Now onto the most interesting point, and that is how vancouver fans look at the game. Like i said, probably the only city in the NHl where fans would crucify their goalie when they can get to a game 7 in SCF with 8 goalies in total is vancouver.... He single handedly forced a game 7, and yet the fans would think he should do more.

it's the "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" that makes me sick. To them, the game that matters is the game we lose. This is why the first person those uneducated fans would point to after a loss is our goalie, and this will continue to happen to our future goalies as long as people such as yourself remain a fan to the team.

you would rather have those people you listed with a life time front load contract?

- Franzen had 4 points combine in this last 2 seasons in the playoff

- Zetterberg? 3 points last season with a first round exit. With these two players, the detroit has failed to get past the second round in the last two seasons.

- Hossa? He got a freaking 6 points (2 goals) in his last two season of playoff

The players that you claimed you would have over Luongo would be BBQ on a pike if they play for vancouver.



some of the vancouver fans are so destructive and hostile toward the players of our team that i am not suprised why there was a riot 2 years ago. The same group of people chased Bure and Naslund away, called the Sedins the Sisters, and will continue to chase everyone of our franchise player away in the future as soon as they have an off season. No team with this kind of envorinment would win a cup, and it's because of idiots such as yourself exist.

Edited by Piggy1983, 01 April 2013 - 02:33 PM.

  • 0

#24 thema

thema

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 985 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:27 PM

"Carried the team" "singlehandedly" to Game 7 of the finals; one wonders what the rest of the team thinks when they read this crapola, especially when the same people who contend that Lou was the be all to end all pass off his terrible meltdowns as "team efforts". You can't have it both ways folks. Firstly we got to game 5 of the finals and then quit, secondly I think it is just a tad disrespectful to be considering the Sedins, Burr, Kes et al as chopped liver.
  • 2

#25 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:29 PM

ALL LONG TERM CONTRACTS LIKE THIS ARE "BAD".

I don't care who it is. I would never sign someone to such a deal.
  • 0
Posted Image

#26 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,031 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

I'm noticing a pattern on MG moves. Ballard trade, was an insurance policy in case we didn't get Hamhuis.
Luongo contract, he wanted a lower cap hit, never considered he might have to trade him down the road.
Hodgson, didn't like dealing with the pestering of Agent and Dad. Didn't want to wait until the offseason to unload him.

Basically he does moves that make sense at the time, but long term not so much.

I'd have prefered a 5-6 year deal. $10 million first year, $8 million, $6 Million, $4 Million, $2 Million. Or 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 2.

Luongo would have been dealt in the offseason with a more reasonable contract.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#27 Fred65

Fred65

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,062 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 10

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:02 PM

Frankly I don't see the contract as onerous as some make it out to be

http://www.capgeek.com/player/683

12 year deal and the last 4 years are for chump change or a good back up salary. The team can trade him after 7 years ( 2 years gone already ) so fundamentally it has 4 years left after this year. That makes him 37 and he keeps himself in great shape that's not a bad deal. Plus he's the 7th highest Goalie in the league with a Cap hit of $5.3....there's a lot worse than that.

It's mainly the peanut gallery prompted by the eastern media that are making all the fuss. IMO
  • 0

#28 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,589 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:05 PM

Then show us how the number of the contract would work if Gilis didn't give Luongo that contract. Note that he's coming off from a close to 7 mil of cap hit that year and was still dominating the league as a goalie. He's not going to accept a contract that pays him 1 million at the age of 37-38 since that's probably the time period you want to drop off his salary to offset the cap hit.

To sum up your first point, you will have to end up paying him at least 6.5 mil - 7.5 mil in cap hit if you want to sign him without giving him a front load type of contract, similar to what Rangers did.

Now onto the most interesting point, and that is how vancouver fans look at the game. Like i said, probably the only city in the NHl where fans would crucify their goalie when they can get to a game 7 in SCF with 8 goalies in total is vancouver.... He single handedly forced a game 7, and yet the fans would think he should do more.

it's the "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" that makes me sick. To them, the game that matters is the game we lose. This is why the first person those uneducated fans would point to after a loss is our goalie, and this will continue to happen to our future goalies as long as people such as yourself remain a fan to the team.

you would rather have those people you listed with a life time front load contract?

- Franzen had 4 points combine in this last 2 seasons in the playoff

- Zetterberg? 3 points last season with a first round exit. With these two players, the detroit has failed to get past the second round in the last two seasons.

- Hossa? He got a freaking 6 points (2 goals) in his last two season of playoff

The players that you claimed you would have over Luongo would be BBQ on a pike if they play for vancouver.



some of the vancouver fans are so destructive and hostile toward the players of our team that i am not suprised why there was a riot 2 years ago. The same group of people chased Bure and Naslund away, called the Sedins the Sisters, and will continue to chase everyone of our franchise player away in the future as soon as they have an off season. No team with this kind of envorinment would win a cup, and it's because of idiots such as yourself exist.

First off, I said it would go up, but it wouldn't have had to be as brutal as it is being made out. Not saying the cap hit wouldn't have been an issue, but I am saying it didn't have to be prohibitive. It is not a black or white scenario.
Secondly, all I said about the 3 players in question was that they step their game up to an elite level in the playoffs, whereas Lou has a history of being less consistent.
If you want to point to last years playoffs to show how Zetterberg, Hossa and Franzen aren't playoff performers (their cup rings say otherwise), then point also to Lou's playoff performance last year. A comparison was made, I was merely pointing out that the players in question have more value despite having long contracts. I appreciate Lou, despite being critical sometimes.
I'm not sure why you feel necessary to call me an idiot, assume I chased Bure or Naslund away, or called the Sedins sisters, but if it helps you to get ugly about it, by all means get as ugly as you want. It doesn't change the fact that if any of the three players mentioned (save for possibly Franzen) would be scooped up more quickly than Lou if it were learned they were on the block.
That is not the same thing as "crucifying" him. You are just being melodramatic.
  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#29 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,026 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:08 PM

That contract got us to game seven of the finals. 'nuff said.
  • 0
Posted Image

#30 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,589 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:09 PM

Frankly I don't see the contract as onerous as some make it out to be

http://www.capgeek.com/player/683

12 year deal and the last 4 years are for chump change or a good back up salary. The team can trade him after 7 years ( 2 years gone already ) so fundamentally it has 4 years left after this year. That makes him 37 and he keeps himself in great shape that's not a bad deal. Plus he's the 7th highest Goalie in the league with a Cap hit of $5.3....there's a lot worse than that.

It's mainly the peanut gallery prompted by the eastern media that are making all the fuss. IMO

It's the sum of the parts.
Cap hit + term + NTC.
And the only real reason anyone is making a fuss is because he's on the block and because of the way it happened. That and the fact that a few teams have passed/balked on a deal.
  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 





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.