Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Examining Luongo contract extension (2009)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
51 replies to this topic

#31 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,233 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:30 PM

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.

Once he's waived the NTC, it'll be up to the team trading for him if he keeps it beyond that. For a team like Florida or the Islanders, the cap hit with a dropping salary over the length of the term is actually a positive. For any team looking for that level of goaltending, the cap hit is pretty reasonable.

Not saying it's perfect as it does have some concerns particularly depending on the team but it's also not nearly as bad as many make it out to be.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#32 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:38 PM

This deal shows how raw Gillis was.

The groin injury is never mentioned and yet changed his career and the fortunes of the Canucks.

#33 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,233 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:39 PM

That contract got us to game seven of the finals. 'nuff said.

Even $1M more in cap hit from Luongo would have meant losing it somewhere else. Since we were already very tight to the cap that season and only some LTI relief allowed us to keep our D corps intact, it's quite possible we would have lost at least one piece that could have affected our cup chances.

The 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 2 suggested by Ghost would be a 6 year, $35M contract. Assuming Luongo accepts that, it'd still be a $5.83M cap hit - $500K more than Luongo's actual contract. That year we had literally 0 cap space and used an estimated $3.56M in LTI relief (mainly from Salo) and had to carry over $15K in bonuses because we were so tight to the cap. Maybe that means us forced into trading one of Bieksa or Ehrhoff (or even Edler) as was speculated at the time, and that might mean not getting to the SCF.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#34 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:40 PM

Everybody in the league laughs at Luongo's contract.
DiPietro and Luongo.Ditch that contract ASAP.

#35 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,062 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:49 PM

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...


You can still be a fan of the team without being a fan of the / a goaltender.
They are the Vancouver Canucks after all, not the Vancouver Luongos.

Edited by Riviera82, 01 April 2013 - 04:50 PM.


#36 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,062 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:52 PM

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


Maybe a good move in 2009. It's backfiring now, big time!

#37 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,233 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:53 PM

*sigh*

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#38 Socrates

Socrates

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:12 PM

Vansicle, on 01 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

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.


Piggy1983

... POINT 1
No team with this kind of envorinment would win a cup, and it's because of idiots such as yourself exist.


... POINT 2
He single handedly forced a game 7, and yet the fans would think he should do more.


Vansicle's opinion looked pretty well articulated to me. And it's his opinion, no matter whether you like it or not. He even invited respectful dialogue (i.e. "Respectfully"). You calling him an idiot forces me to agree with your first point, but for the wrong reasons.

As for Luongo's "single-handed effort to take us to Game 7", you might just be right again. But again for the wrong reasons. Technically, forcing a Game 7 can only occur in Game 6 - so you're right, it was 3-0 Bruins before the end of the first half of the first period with Luongo in goal. No doubt Luongo played great in games 1,2 and 5, but he was arguably just as big of a factor in the Bruins clawing their way back in the series. If AV had the guts to start Schneids as soon as Game 4 and as late as Game 6, maybe we would have had a better chance of hoisting the cup and after less than 7 games.

Edited by Socrates, 01 April 2013 - 05:15 PM.


#39 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:15 PM

You can still be a fan of the team without being a fan of the / a goaltender.
They are the Vancouver Canucks after all, not the Vancouver Luongos.


the problem is their treatment to our goalie would apply to all our players too. There is no logic or reasoning behind it.

like I said, there are still people here complaining Luongo's cap hit, or that he choked in the playoff and praise some guy who scored 4 points in 13 games in detroit .

you dont have to be a fan of any of our players to be a fan of the team, just don't be an idiot or an ass toward some players without having a logical reasoning behind it

#40 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,062 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:17 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.


It didn't pay off. Your'e talking about 1 series and ignoring 3 others, not to mention that it's very debatable whether he "carried" the team throughout the 2011 playoffs to Game 7 of the SCF. In my opinion it's also irrelevant whether we got to Game 7 and lost or lost in 4 or 5, you dont get a runner-up prize for losing in 7 games. Yes he posted 2 shutouts, he also posted 3 blowouts and a mediocre performance in Game 7. Perhaps if he wasn't so hot and cold all the time, AV wouldn't have such difficulty choosing which goaltender to play and our fortunes in playoffs gone by might have been different.

#41 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:19 PM

Vansicle's opinion looked pretty well articulated to me. And it's his opinion, no matter whether you like it or not. He even invited respectful dialogue (i.e. "Respectfully"). You calling him an idiot forces me to agree with your first point, but for the wrong reasons.

As for Luongo's "single-handed effort to take us to Game 7", you might just be right again. But again for the wrong reasons. Technically, forcing a Game 7 can only occur in Game 6 - so you're right, it was 3-0 Bruins before the end of the first half of the first period with Luongo in goal. No doubt Luongo played great in games 1,2 and 5, but he was arguably just as big of a factor in the Bruins clawing their way back in the series. If AV had the guts to start Schneids as soon as Game 4 and as late as Game 6, maybe we would have had a better chance of hoisting the cup and after less than 7 games.


ffs... before game 6 we were ahead in the SCF series with 5 goals total. FIVE.

LUongo wasn't the factor the Bruin came back in the series, the whole series in front of him is. You do NOT bench the player that is holding up the series on his back in favor of a goalie with 1 playoff game under his belt.


this is the only place in the world where people would blame the goalie for losing the series ahead of any other players or staffs when the whole team once lead a series with 5 goals in total by game 5.

#42 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,062 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:27 PM

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.


Yeah, kind of. It would've been easier to handle knowing for a fact that this team simply wasn't good enough, rather than go all the way down to the wire and know it was over and the dream was dead halfway through game 7.

Personally, I wouldn't have lost all faith in Luongo if we were losing playoff games by a couple goals like you described above.

#43 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:34 PM

Yeah, kind of. It would've been easier to handle knowing for a fact that this team simply wasn't good enough, rather than go all the way down to the wire and know it was over and the dream was dead halfway through game 7.

Personally, I wouldn't have lost all faith in Luongo if we were losing playoff games by a couple goals like you described above.


no, you will still bitch about how big our goalie and that he's the only reason why we didnt go further than 4 games in the SCF. In fact, it will give you more reason to complain about our goalie.

#44 kilgore

kilgore

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,699 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:38 PM

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.


Yeah it probably would have been easier on my system.
So it had nothing to do with the D stepping it up in those stolen games?
But even if he did. That's what is frustrating as a fan. You need consistency no matter how many "Great save Luongo!" Hughson yells. He could be brilliant for 55 minutes, but all it takes is 5 minutes of brutal play and its over. In the regular season, like the last Edmonton game, or when he started in Detroit, there is always the next game. But in the playoffs it can't happen.


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


So its the team that got "torched for 8 goals in game 3"? And it was 12 GAA in games 3 & 4. I think that's some kind of record. Game 6 we lost 5-2, which doesn't sound too too lopsided, but then you consider that the Bruins' first four goals occurred in a span of 4 minutes and 14 seconds during the first period, setting a Finals record for the fastest four goals scored by a team. That's what I'm talking about. Of course the rest of the team needed to score, but when goals are going in faster than lightning behind them how could they? You don't think that affects the psychology of the skaters?


Look maybe you guys can overlook those performances or believe that Luongo has somehow changed since then. Good for you. I wish I had that kind of faith but I just don't anymore. Not after not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 questionable playoff performances. The sooner he is gone, and Cory can stop looking over his shoulder and take the mantle the better. He may not even be as spectacular sometimes as Lu, but he's more consistent and the team plays more confident in front of him.

#45 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,661 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:40 PM

He helped us get to the finals and if Tim Thomas would have pumped his tires we would have a cup right now.

#46 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,062 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:10 PM

no, you will still bitch about how big our goalie and that he's the only reason why we didnt go further than 4 games in the SCF. In fact, it will give you more reason to complain about our goalie.


Not entirely sure what your'e trying to say but here's my retort anyway.

If we lost the SCF in 4 games or any series for that matter, if Luongo held us in the games and gave the team a good chance EVERY time or at least almost every time, I would not complain much about him, if at all.
If the Canucks lose games by scores of 1-0, 2-1, 3-2, or whatever, any score that's reasonably close, then the blame can be laid almost entirely on the team's lack of scoring ability.

#47 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:24 PM

Not entirely sure what your'e trying to say but here's my retort anyway.

If we lost the SCF in 4 games or any series for that matter, if Luongo held us in the games and gave the team a good chance EVERY time or at least almost every time, I would not complain much about him, if at all.
If the Canucks lose games by scores of 1-0, 2-1, 3-2, or whatever, any score that's reasonably close, then the blame can be laid almost entirely on the team's lack of scoring ability.


and here is the major difference between you and me. You don't seem to understand the whole concept of a hockey game.

no goalie in the history of hockey can have a good game every or "almost" every time. This is the natural of the game. This is the team's job to win the game when things doesn't go well to the goalie.

Tim Thomas, the goalie who shut out Vancouver, allowed 21 goals in 7 games against tempa bay. The difference is that Boston show up in the series when the goalie can't stop the goals.

Is luongo to blame with the lost in the SCF? yes, but he's the LAST person to blame.


how do you call yourself a hockey fan when you can't even understand the most basic concept of hockey? goalies will let it bad goals and they can't keep the score close every night.

wait.. judging from your comment about you would rather see the team lose in 4 rounds instead of 7 in the SCF, i don't even know if i can count you as a fan

#48 Socrates

Socrates

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:45 PM

If I may suggest we stick to the original intent of the post.

Thank you.

#49 shazzam

shazzam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,919 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:25 PM


Not entirely sure what your'e trying to say but here's my retort anyway.

If we lost the SCF in 4 games or any series for that matter, if Luongo held us in the games and gave the team a good chance EVERY time or at least almost every time, I would not complain much about him, if at all.
If the Canucks lose games by scores of 1-0, 2-1, 3-2, or whatever, any score that's reasonably close, then the blame can be laid almost entirely on the team's lack of scoring ability.


exactly, Thomas gave his team a chance to win in all 7 games and Luongo didn't

Although I blame the coach for not pulling him in game 3 which just seemed to totally rattled him. Like seriously, after what happened in the Hawks' series, AV should know better. Huge coaching mistake.

Edited by shazzam, 01 April 2013 - 07:26 PM.


#50 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,062 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:25 PM

and here is the major difference between you and me. You don't seem to understand the whole concept of a hockey game.

no goalie in the history of hockey can have a good game every or "almost" every time. This is the natural of the game. This is the team's job to win the game when things doesn't go well to the goalie.

Tim Thomas, the goalie who shut out Vancouver, allowed 21 goals in 7 games against tempa bay. The difference is that Boston show up in the series when the goalie can't stop the goals.

Is luongo to blame with the lost in the SCF? yes, but he's the LAST person to blame.


how do you call yourself a hockey fan when you can't even understand the most basic concept of hockey? goalies will let it bad goals and they can't keep the score close every night.

wait.. judging from your comment about you would rather see the team lose in 4 rounds instead of 7 in the SCF, i don't even know if i can count you as a fan


A goaltender CAN keep the score close almost every game in the playoffs, lots of goalies have done it, especially ones that are considered elite and world-class and whatever.

The Tim Thomas argument is pretty weak. Yes, he did give up a lot of goals against Tampa, but did the Bruins ever fall behind by numerous goals in any of the games? No they didn't. Luongo's inconsistencies have put the Canucks behind the eight-ball in 4 series, 3 that we lost and 1 that had no business going as far as it did.

#51 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:38 PM

A goaltender CAN keep the score close almost every game in the playoffs, lots of goalies have done it, especially ones that are considered elite and world-class and whatever.

The Tim Thomas argument is pretty weak. Yes, he did give up a lot of goals against Tampa, but did the Bruins ever fall behind by numerous goals in any of the games? No they didn't. Luongo's inconsistencies have put the Canucks behind the eight-ball in 4 series, 3 that we lost and 1 that had no business going as far as it did.


Jesus.
The reason Boston didn't fall behind was, guess what, they actually scored when they got scored on. How ridiculous is it to blame the lack of scoring on a freaking goalie?

This type of backward logic scares me, and for that I am out.

#52 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,479 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:27 PM

Anyone who thinks that was a bad contract is out to lunch.

If he was signed to fewer years, his cap hit would be at least 1M higher. That extra mil is huge when making a push for the cup. Didn't Torres and Lappy have 1M cap hits in 2011?

What MG should have done is stick to his decisions. He committed to Lu, so he should have traded Cory in 2011 at TD to maximize our chances.

Instead this mess we have now is a result of a GM giving up on his plans.

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 

small.png CDC Puck - New York Rangers

 





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.