A future goalie controversy

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

2 hours ago, ABNuck said:

Please people...we need to stop calling Bobby Lu's contract BAD...it was not a bad contract...in fact it was so GOOD (and hence deemed an unfair competitive advantage) that the league had to step in and stop those types of contracts as they were unfair to other owners who didn't have the financial means to front load a contract the way they did Lu's (10+mil in year 1 at an AAV of 5.33mil). So the league stepped in, created a bunch of payout penalties which in fact turned what was a brilliantly crafted contract (to our advantage) into a water-logged contract (again, I have no idea why the Canucks never challenged those penalties in court but I guess if you want to be part of the "old boys club" then you need to just shut up and take your lumps).

 

At first I used to think that the (media induced) "goalie controversy" in Vancouver was created when the Canucks signed that long-term contract. Again, nothing screams future goalie controversy quite like drafting a future superstar stud like Schneids, ask him to continue to pay his dues in the minors (where he pretty much dominated) and then instead of signing HIM to a long term contract with a crossover with Bobby Lu as starter, they go and sign the older guy to 12 year contract effectively saying to Cory "thanks, but it looks like we'll be sticking with Lu". As I look at it now the intention all along may well have been to keep both going long-term (because the contract was front-loaded Lu would eventually fade to backup duty where Aquaman is only paying him a mil or 2 in real salary). Cory would have been the guy front and centre on a similar front loaded contract...but alas...that plan (if it was the plan) went away due to the new contract penalties.

 

Regardless...it netted us our future captain and stop-gap goalie (Markstrom) until the next 2 are ready to go...and has actually pushed us into rebuild mode (which isn't necessarily a bad thing every once in a while) which has netted us Pettersson, Boeser, Virtanen, Juolevi and Hughes...so...there's that...

Lol Luongo himself said it was bad not Vancouver fans 

[JM_]

we should be so lucky 

[erkayloomeh]

3 hours ago, ABNuck said:

Oh...and one more note about goalies...they're flaky and streaky. I remember how odd they were especially when coaching junior aged goalies (17-19 year olds)...weird pack of dudes (the 3 of them hung out together, and apart from the rest of the team...just odd young men).

 

So, it becomes difficult to commit your team to any one goalie for too long and for too much. The Canucks over the past 2 seasons committed to the 2 goalie system, but one of them flaked out. Even before the current (recent) tandem we had the Luongo / Lack controversy...Lack looked like the guy, well, where is he now? And how about that situation in Pittsburgh, or Philly, or Price in MTL (up and down the past couple of seasons) or even Boston (Rask is just getting back to his old self).

 

NHL goaltender is the toughest spot in pro-sports (possibly rivaled only by a starting pitcher in MLB but even then a manager can see quite early on if something ain't right and can go to his large by comparison bullpen...in hockey there's only one other guy in the bullpen and usually coaches wait until a game is gone before making the change). As such, the tenders are a different breed, cool as cucumbers, steady nerves even to the point of appearing aloof at times. So here's the thing...where a position like that calls for so much mental preparedness and steadiness to be successful why would any GM sign any goalie to a contract longer than a 2-4 years...ever? Too much can change in a young adult's life (marriage, children, investments, agencies, trades etc etc etc) that would parlay into the type of environment that would allow a mid-20's goaltender to be stable enough to perform the same now as he would 5 years from now...or worse (like Price etc) 8 years in the future!

 

Many debates are sparked about what it takes to win the Cup...and most of them make some mention of what is going on in the pipes. Few teams have hoisted the Grail without having some stability in net, but that stability will come in whatever form or timing is just right at the moment (imagine we sneak into the playoffs and Marky has a run like he just had in December...we'd be in the WCF!). Look at some past winners and look at where their goaltending was in the BIG picture...Crawford has been up and down (but he was UP at the right time to win it all), Rask (same), Quick (has been fairly steady, possibly the steadiest of the bunch) but even he has had stretches of meltdowns, does Pittsburgh win if not for Murray stepping up when Fleury went down? What if Murray sucked since he was just a backup? And how about now...would you dump Murray and go with DeSmith? Too early to say, DeSmith could flake out too. How about the contracts signed by Condon and Hammond...remember when the Hamburglar was the greatest goalie to come along in the playoffs? Anyways...many examples. Just too flaky a position to commit too long term (need I mention the "other" DePietro? Please tell me they're not related...we don't need THAT disaster following us around for the next million years).

Good perspective here.

And on another note, what about the job of the backup?  

Take any of the top goaltenders you mentioned and put them on the bench for two weeks then throw them in unexpectedly and I wonder how they would fair? 

And even if they played well sit them on the bench for another two weeks. 

Now , after they unexpectedly get thrown in and don't impress, let them get raked over the coals by the fans and media about being a scrub. 

Nilsson. Would not surprise me to see him a number one in the nhl.  If he gets a string of games and gets on a roll then look out. The potential is there. 

I said at the beginning of the year that markstrom would be top ten goalie in the nhl by the end of the year and I got mocked. 

But you are right ABcanuck. It's a funny and tough position. 

[erkayloomeh]

3 hours ago, ABNuck said:

Oh...and one more note about goalies...they're flaky and streaky. I remember how odd they were especially when coaching junior aged goalies (17-19 year olds)...weird pack of dudes (the 3 of them hung out together, and apart from the rest of the team...just odd young men).

 

So, it becomes difficult to commit your team to any one goalie for too long and for too much. The Canucks over the past 2 seasons committed to the 2 goalie system, but one of them flaked out. Even before the current (recent) tandem we had the Luongo / Lack controversy...Lack looked like the guy, well, where is he now? And how about that situation in Pittsburgh, or Philly, or Price in MTL (up and down the past couple of seasons) or even Boston (Rask is just getting back to his old self).

 

NHL goaltender is the toughest spot in pro-sports (possibly rivaled only by a starting pitcher in MLB but even then a manager can see quite early on if something ain't right and can go to his large by comparison bullpen...in hockey there's only one other guy in the bullpen and usually coaches wait until a game is gone before making the change). As such, the tenders are a different breed, cool as cucumbers, steady nerves even to the point of appearing aloof at times. So here's the thing...where a position like that calls for so much mental preparedness and steadiness to be successful why would any GM sign any goalie to a contract longer than a 2-4 years...ever? Too much can change in a young adult's life (marriage, children, investments, agencies, trades etc etc etc) that would parlay into the type of environment that would allow a mid-20's goaltender to be stable enough to perform the same now as he would 5 years from now...or worse (like Price etc) 8 years in the future!

 

Many debates are sparked about what it takes to win the Cup...and most of them make some mention of what is going on in the pipes. Few teams have hoisted the Grail without having some stability in net, but that stability will come in whatever form or timing is just right at the moment (imagine we sneak into the playoffs and Marky has a run like he just had in December...we'd be in the WCF!). Look at some past winners and look at where their goaltending was in the BIG picture...Crawford has been up and down (but he was UP at the right time to win it all), Rask (same), Quick (has been fairly steady, possibly the steadiest of the bunch) but even he has had stretches of meltdowns, does Pittsburgh win if not for Murray stepping up when Fleury went down? What if Murray sucked since he was just a backup? And how about now...would you dump Murray and go with DeSmith? Too early to say, DeSmith could flake out too. How about the contracts signed by Condon and Hammond...remember when the Hamburglar was the greatest goalie to come along in the playoffs? Anyways...many examples. Just too flaky a position to commit too long term (need I mention the "other" DePietro? Please tell me they're not related...we don't need THAT disaster following us around for the next million years).

Good perspective here.

And on another note, what about the job of the backup?  

Take any of the top goaltenders you mentioned and put them on the bench for two weeks then throw them in unexpectedly and I wonder how they would fair? 

And even if they played well sit them on the bench for another two weeks. 

Now , after they unexpectedly get thrown in and don't impress, let them get raked over the coals by the fans and media about being a scrub. 

Nilsson. Would not surprise me to see him a number one in the nhl.  If he gets a string of games and gets on a roll then look out. The potential is there. 

I said at the beginning of the year that markstrom would be top ten goalie in the nhl by the end of the year and I got mocked. 

But you are right ABcanuck. It's a funny and tough position. 

[erkayloomeh]

3 hours ago, ABNuck said:

Oh...and one more note about goalies...they're flaky and streaky. I remember how odd they were especially when coaching junior aged goalies (17-19 year olds)...weird pack of dudes (the 3 of them hung out together, and apart from the rest of the team...just odd young men).

 

So, it becomes difficult to commit your team to any one goalie for too long and for too much. The Canucks over the past 2 seasons committed to the 2 goalie system, but one of them flaked out. Even before the current (recent) tandem we had the Luongo / Lack controversy...Lack looked like the guy, well, where is he now? And how about that situation in Pittsburgh, or Philly, or Price in MTL (up and down the past couple of seasons) or even Boston (Rask is just getting back to his old self).

 

NHL goaltender is the toughest spot in pro-sports (possibly rivaled only by a starting pitcher in MLB but even then a manager can see quite early on if something ain't right and can go to his large by comparison bullpen...in hockey there's only one other guy in the bullpen and usually coaches wait until a game is gone before making the change). As such, the tenders are a different breed, cool as cucumbers, steady nerves even to the point of appearing aloof at times. So here's the thing...where a position like that calls for so much mental preparedness and steadiness to be successful why would any GM sign any goalie to a contract longer than a 2-4 years...ever? Too much can change in a young adult's life (marriage, children, investments, agencies, trades etc etc etc) that would parlay into the type of environment that would allow a mid-20's goaltender to be stable enough to perform the same now as he would 5 years from now...or worse (like Price etc) 8 years in the future!

 

Many debates are sparked about what it takes to win the Cup...and most of them make some mention of what is going on in the pipes. Few teams have hoisted the Grail without having some stability in net, but that stability will come in whatever form or timing is just right at the moment (imagine we sneak into the playoffs and Marky has a run like he just had in December...we'd be in the WCF!). Look at some past winners and look at where their goaltending was in the BIG picture...Crawford has been up and down (but he was UP at the right time to win it all), Rask (same), Quick (has been fairly steady, possibly the steadiest of the bunch) but even he has had stretches of meltdowns, does Pittsburgh win if not for Murray stepping up when Fleury went down? What if Murray sucked since he was just a backup? And how about now...would you dump Murray and go with DeSmith? Too early to say, DeSmith could flake out too. How about the contracts signed by Condon and Hammond...remember when the Hamburglar was the greatest goalie to come along in the playoffs? Anyways...many examples. Just too flaky a position to commit too long term (need I mention the "other" DePietro? Please tell me they're not related...we don't need THAT disaster following us around for the next million years).

Good perspective here.

And on another note, what about the job of the backup?  

Take any of the top goaltenders you mentioned and put them on the bench for two weeks then throw them in unexpectedly and I wonder how they would fair? 

And even if they played well sit them on the bench for another two weeks. 

Now , after they unexpectedly get thrown in and don't impress, let them get raked over the coals by the fans and media about being a scrub. 

Nilsson. Would not surprise me to see him a number one in the nhl.  If he gets a string of games and gets on a roll then look out. The potential is there. 

I said at the beginning of the year that markstrom would be top ten goalie in the nhl by the end of the year and I got mocked. 

But you are right ABcanuck. It's a funny and tough position. 

[iceman64]

21 minutes ago, erkayloomeh said:

Good perspective here.

And on another note, what about the job of the backup?  

Take any of the top goaltenders you mentioned and put them on the bench for two weeks then throw them in unexpectedly and I wonder how they would fair? 

And even if they played well sit them on the bench for another two weeks. 

Now , after they unexpectedly get thrown in and don't impress, let them get raked over the coals by the fans and media about being a scrub. 

Nilsson. Would not surprise me to see him a number one in the nhl.  If he gets a string of games and gets on a roll then look out. The potential is there. 

I said at the beginning of the year that markstrom would be top ten goalie in the nhl by the end of the year and I got mocked. 

But you are right ABcanuck. It's a funny and tough position. 

Well JM has yet to peak but a lot on this site forget how much goalies and power forwards take to fully develop but i suppose the cdc is much like the media, mostly not clued in BUT there are some smart ones here who make well thought out comments not just regurgitate some media thought/s even if it's not correct.. meh..

 

[fanfor42]

Dipietro is a very good junour goalie but his style needs to change to play pro.  He's very small in the net with his set up for shots.  In the AHL he will have to learn to set up bigger in net

 Watch for this  comment from his coaches hext year when he gets to Utica. Good luck to him very likable kid! 

[iceman64]

9 minutes ago, fanfor42 said:

Dipietro is a very good junour goalie but his style needs to change to play pro.  He's very small in the net with his set up for shots.  In the AHL he will have to learn to set up bigger in net

 Watch for this  comment from his coaches hext year when he gets to Utica. Good luck to him very likable kid! 

A longtime fan too? Gawd i remember don lever... am i really this old?  $&!#e!!! Lmao

[ABNuck]

4 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Lol Luongo himself said it was bad not Vancouver fans 

I'm guessing that you're fairly new around here and possibly to hockey as well?

 

Loooong (pun intended) before Lu came out on twitter and in the media with his "bad contract" comments he was already being raked over the coals for his contract (like it was his fault)...by both fans and especially by the media for about 6 months...they started in on the bad contract talk when the whole Eddie Lack controversy happened and it was speculated that Lu might be moved. Once they thoroughly investigated the "new rules" that retro-actively applied to Lu's (previously awesome and unfair) contract, they deemed it a bad and unmovable contract (again, not because of the contract when it was signed, but due to the new rules). Strombo has always been pretty humble about poking fun at himself, so his "bad contract" comments I believe were tongue-in-cheek directed at the NHL "old boys club" (for their new rule changes that screwed over him, his agent and the Canucks) and subsequently to the media that tend to blow hither and fro with any new story...be it actual news or news of their own making (ie/ Vancouver's supposed "goalie controversy).

 

Anyways, welcome to the Canucks and to hockey...I think you'll like it!

[NexusRift]

Have we forgotten that we're a goalie graveyard?

I'd love for a goalie we drafted to take us to the promised land. However thus far, any goalie we had that brought us deep in the playoffs or to the finals were all acquired through trade. 

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

19 hours ago, ABNuck said:

I'm guessing that you're fairly new around here and possibly to hockey as well?

 

Loooong (pun intended) before Lu came out on twitter and in the media with his "bad contract" comments he was already being raked over the coals for his contract (like it was his fault)...by both fans and especially by the media for about 6 months...they started in on the bad contract talk when the whole Eddie Lack controversy happened and it was speculated that Lu might be moved. Once they thoroughly investigated the "new rules" that retro-actively applied to Lu's (previously awesome and unfair) contract, they deemed it a bad and unmovable contract (again, not because of the contract when it was signed, but due to the new rules). Strombo has always been pretty humble about poking fun at himself, so his "bad contract" comments I believe were tongue-in-cheek directed at the NHL "old boys club" (for their new rule changes that screwed over him, his agent and the Canucks) and subsequently to the media that tend to blow hither and fro with any new story...be it actual news or news of their own making (ie/ Vancouver's supposed "goalie controversy).

 

Anyways, welcome to the Canucks and to hockey...I think you'll like it!

All this because a meme in a photo of the actually player who said it, hurt your feelings that much . You definitely don't know how to have a laugh and definitely take things way to seriously in life, and like to make things personal when someone doesn't take the time to take you serious when you couldn't take a joke, learn to lighten up a bit but that's probably not in your vocabulary seeing how you like to respond to people. You got one thing right though the Media sure helped put that message into peoples heads, the fans were just sold on Schneider being the #1 going forward, until the media decided to help that out. 

 

But here's the thing that makes no sense in your hockey memory which is obviously lacking, when Luongo came out and said my contract sucks Lack wasn't even playing for them , Lack didn't even play until the following year after Schneider was traded. Here's a fact for your memory so you can know what you're talking about maybe next time. 2012-13 season Schneider was taking over the #1 spot and fans wanted that, Luongo wasn't happy being the 2nd string goalie, come trade deadline April 2013 Luongo isn't traded and then comes out and says "my contract sucks" then off season that year 2013 Schneider is traded, that means the following year 2013-14 the goalies are Luongo and now Lack, your a year behind on your facts but good luck with that. 

 

But hey nice try prospect maybe you'll make it to the first line one day 

[The Lock]

On 1/12/2019 at 11:47 AM, ABNuck said:

Please people...we need to stop calling Bobby Lu's contract BAD...it was not a bad contract...in fact it was so GOOD (and hence deemed an unfair competitive advantage) that the league had to step in and stop those types of contracts as they were unfair to other owners who didn't have the financial means to front load a contract the way they did Lu's (10+mil in year 1 at an AAV of 5.33mil). So the league stepped in, created a bunch of payout penalties which in fact turned what was a brilliantly crafted contract (to our advantage) into a water-logged contract (again, I have no idea why the Canucks never challenged those penalties in court but I guess if you want to be part of the "old boys club" then you need to just shut up and take your lumps).

 

At first I used to think that the (media induced) "goalie controversy" in Vancouver was created when the Canucks signed that long-term contract. Again, nothing screams future goalie controversy quite like drafting a future superstar stud like Schneids, ask him to continue to pay his dues in the minors (where he pretty much dominated) and then instead of signing HIM to a long term contract with a crossover with Bobby Lu as starter, they go and sign the older guy to 12 year contract effectively saying to Cory "thanks, but it looks like we'll be sticking with Lu". As I look at it now the intention all along may well have been to keep both going long-term (because the contract was front-loaded Lu would eventually fade to backup duty where Aquaman is only paying him a mil or 2 in real salary). Cory would have been the guy front and centre on a similar front loaded contract...but alas...that plan (if it was the plan) went away due to the new contract penalties.

 

Regardless...it netted us our future captain and stop-gap goalie (Markstrom) until the next 2 are ready to go...and has actually pushed us into rebuild mode (which isn't necessarily a bad thing every once in a while) which has netted us Pettersson, Boeser, Virtanen, Juolevi and Hughes...so...there's that...

You do realise it stems from a joke Luongo made when the media was asking stupid questions right? This amount of writing on a joke seems.... excessive in my opinion?.....

 

I get that it's possible to get riled up about our previous contract situation but some people need to calm down! lol

[Tiger-Hearted]

On 1/11/2019 at 11:43 AM, ruilin96 said:

History finds a way to repeat itself.

 

Thatcher Demko:

- American born goalie, graduating out of Boston College

 

Michael DiPietro:

- Canadian born goalie, coming from a family of Italian Heritage

 

Both goalies are eyeing the #1 job in net for Vancouver. Eventually we will have to make a decision on who is the one we go forward with. That decision won't be made until atleast 4-5 years down the road but it will be interesting to see what will happen this time around.

Let's hope both guys stay single during their prime. The Wife Jinx seems to bite Canuck goalies in the rear, let alone, the gonads. Ie. McLean -> Jeff Brown affair; Luongo -> Wife preferring residence in Florida than Vancouver(baby drama in '08); Schneider -> Kesler affair.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Leafs had two goalie prospects a while back where they kept the one who had an impressive World Junior performance.  They dealt the other guy.  The guy traded was Rask.  The guy they kept was a bust.

 

Moral of the story?  Better to have two goalie prospects than just one.  We’ll be fine.  Markstrom is good enough as a placeholder until the future goalie thing is sorted out.

[SilentSam]

There is always a goalie controversy in Vancouver..  

its the easiest position for journalists to over analyze and write about.

we should be so lucky to have true assets in Markstrom, Demko and Dipietro.

 

 

[Glug Datt]

On 1/11/2019 at 11:43 AM, ruilin96 said:

History finds a way to repeat itself.

 

Thatcher Demko:

- American born goalie, graduating out of Boston College

 

Michael DiPietro:

- Canadian born goalie, coming from a family of Italian Heritage

 

Both goalies are eyeing the #1 job in net for Vancouver. Eventually we will have to make a decision on who is the one we go forward with. That decision won't be made until atleast 4-5 years down the road but it will be interesting to see what will happen this time around.

and if anything was learned the first time around

[bloodycanuckleheads]

Remember when Kevin Weekes was the goalie who was going to backstop our team for like a decade?  How did that turn out?...