Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

poetica

Members
  • Posts

    5,509
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by poetica

  1. We were NOT a defense first team. We were the top scoring team in the league that year. (And the 2nd best scoring team the year before.) Yes, we allowed 23 goals against in 7 games in the SCF and 20 of them were against Luo. And? It's a best of 7 series and in the 4 games played at home Luo only allowed a total of 5 goals. Do I think it's realistic to expect the top offensive team of the regular season to be able to score enough to beat 5 goals in 4 games? You better believe it! And by the way, out of our 25 games played that year, Luo only allowed 4 or more goals 6 times. Thomas allowed 4 or more in 5 games. Does that mean he wasn't "elite" either?
  2. There's no denying his stats were average this year. Though, as others have pointed out that was largely due to the smaller sample size. But, people here need to get a more realistic idea of what "average" really is. Average is mid-range. Average is not anyone not in the top 5. If you look at 11/12's SV% leaders at NHL.com (which included 45 goalies who all played 26 or more games), Luo was ranked 12th. That may be a dip from where he was the previous season, but it is still above average. For comparison, Luo's SV% that year was only .001 below Thomas. And it was higher than the SV% for Vokoun, Niemi, Crawford, and 30 more goalies!
  3. You obviously failed to understand what I said if that's what you took from it. He did NOT lose 4 games very badly. He lost 3 games very badly. Luo absolutely and unequivocally played well enough to get 4 wins in the SCF! While there's no denying that he sucked in Boston, at home he only allowed 5 goals in 4 games, including 2 shutouts, our 3-2 OT win in Game 2, and 3 goals in Game 7. As I pointed out in my previous post, 3 goals against (only one of which came in the first half of the game) was not putting the game out of hand nor was it an unrealistic amount to have to expect to overcome. Not only did Boston have to do it 4 times in their 25 games to win the Cup in 10/11, Chicago had to do it 4 times in their 23 games this year (twice in the SCF.) (Even LA had to win 1 game in which Quick gave up 3 goals last year.) We did not win because we couldn't provide the level of offense needed to win. Plain and simple. It's pure ignorance to blame it on the goalie. Case and point, here are the number of goals allowed by each goalie in games their teams won: Thomas - goals allowed in games won round 1 - 10 round 2 - 7 round 3 - 6 round 4 - 3 total - 26 Luo - goals allowed in games won round 1 - 6 round 2 - 5 round 3 - 9 round 4 - 2 (In Game 7 he allowed 3. If we had won that game, his series total would have been 5.) total - 22 (If we had won Game 7, Luo would have allowed a total of 25 goals in all of our wins and we would have a Cup!) Yes, Luo had blowout games and every game matters. But anyone who thinks we didn't or couldn't win because of Luo is just wrong! That is true. Sorry for making it seem you were saying something you weren't.
  4. Luo only allowed 3 goals in Game 7. (The 4th was an empty netter.) A team that can't score, can't win. And a team has to be able to win a few in which their goalie gives up 3. Boston did it 4 times just to make it to the Finals that year. Despite how much people like to say Luo sucked, we only had to win 2 games in which Luo gave up 3 goals (in the same number of games played) to make it to the Finals. Even if we had won in Game 7 and Luo had still given up those 3 goals we would have still won fewer games in which our goalie gave up 3 goals than Boston did. And none when he gave up more than 3, while Boston won 2 games in which Thomas gave up 4 and 5 goals respectively. Luo might have cost us the 3 games in Boston, but he got us the 3 wins and our complete lack of offense cost us Game 7.
  5. You're right, Kesler was dynamite in the Nashville series (11 points!), but so was Luo. In that series, Luo got a shutout and had a .933 SV%. He also won every game by a single goal margin. (One of the games was technically a 2 goal win, but the insurance goal was an empty netter.) And you're right that Luo was a factor in our win over SJ that year with his .931 SV%, but he was an even bigger factor in our win over Nashville. In fact, he allowed 2 fewer goals in our 6-game series with Nashville than he did in our 5-game series with SJ. And he had to because we only scored 14 goals against Nashville but scored 20 goals against SJ in one less game. Obviously goaltending was the major factor in both, but especially our win over Nashville. I couldn't agree with you more about Chicago though. They were a team both Luo and the rest of the team had a problem with but they all worked together, overcame it and finally beat their demons. Luo definitely struggled more than the rest of the team, giving up 17 goals in 7 games (including being pulled twice and playing just under 33 minutes, including OT, of another game that Cory started.) But, 10 of the goals against him came in only 2 games and Luo was pretty good in the other 4 games. He even got a shutout in the first game and 3 of the 4 wins by a single goal margin, including Game 7 when he gave up only 1 goal in 65:22. All in all, it was a great team effort!
  6. That bolded part is true. But, it's also true that Luo was the best Canuck on ice and was widely seen as playing very well in both of those SJ games despite the 3 goals allowed in each. Sometimes the stats don't reflect the play. (And, no one seems to care that Cory's stats have been improved by going in in relief of Luo. For example, if you only look at the game he actually started, Cory's SV% for the 10/11 playoff would have been .850 instead of .915. It's just how it works.) Yes, Luo has definitely had some bad games, but who hasn't? Why are his bad games so much worse than anyone else's? And why are they so much more important than all of the other games he played along the way? For example, in 08/09 the team lost Game 4 of that Chicago series. Luo played all 62:52 of the game and stopped 26 of the 28 shots he faced, including 3 of the 4 that came in OT. The team contributed a grand total of 15 shots in the entire game, including their single shot in OT. Their most number of shots was in the 2nd period when they topped out with 6 shots in the entire period. In 10/11, if he didn't win 3 games in the SCF by a single goal, they wouldn't have made it to Game 7 at all. And he played pretty well, only allowing 3 goals in total and only one in the first half of the game. The team scored 0 goals. And that's the point. It's a team sport and we need our goalie and our team to do their part. I don't disagree that Luo needs to work on his consistency, but so does the rest of the team. A full team effort is the (not-so) secret to success and we will find it only when we stop expecting a single player or even a single line to do the work of the entire team.
  7. Luo could have very easily gotten his name alone on the trophy. In fact, it was only because he chose to allow Cory to get his name on it that they shared it. The Jennings Trophy is only shared if the backup plays at least 25 games in the season. In 2011 Cory only started 22 games and went in in relief of Luo twice, which meant he was going to be one game short. Luo lobbied on his behalf and asked AV to make sure Cory met the requirements and would get his name on the trophy. As a result, Cory was sent in for 29 seconds at the end of a game against Edmonton. It was only by being in for those 29 seconds that he even qualify to have his name on the trophy. (This was common knowledge and frequently talked about at the time, but if you need proof read this 2011 article from The Province.) But good point about the importance of the rest of the team. Of course, that applies equally to EVERY goalie, not just Luo! And it can go the other way too. Case and point: Thomas actually had a better GAA (2.00) that season than Luo (2.11). The difference in winning the Jennings WAS Cory, as he had the 4th best GAA (2.23) while Rask had the 30th (2.67).
  8. Luo only allowed 3 goals in Game 7 of the Boston series. The 4th goal was an empty netter. EDIT: And his 11/12 GAA was 3.59, not 4. And his 12/13 GAA was 2.57, not 3.
  9. Actually, he only let in 3 in Game 7. The 4th was an empty netter. And he only allowed a total of 5 goals in our 4 home games in that series - 2 shutouts, 2 goals in Game 2 and 3 goals in Game 7. As I've said more times than I can count, Luo might have sucked in Boston but he was good enough at home for us to win 4. We didn't lose because of him.
  10. Not really, though he certainly could make some improvements (like the rest of our team.) But that wasn't the point. The point was you said Luo is inconsistent because he has off months just like everyone else and that he always has his off months at the same time of year. If he's like everyone else, that's not inconsistent. That's normal. And if he always has off months at the same time of every season, that's the definition of consistency. Consistency does not mean good, but rather "constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form." (source) If you truly believe that Jan and Feb are the "dog days of the season where injuries and complacency set in" then you should be thankful that Luo is good in those months. If the rest of the team isn't playing well, it's probably pretty important for our postseason that our goalie is. Plus, do you honestly think Luo sucks in every month except Jan & Feb and he's just so good for that 2 month stretch that he makes his stats for the entire season look better? If so, maybe check out Luo's ESPN page to see the reality. They conveniently have each season broken down by month (and each playoff round broken down by series when applicable.) While you're there, maybe check out some other goalies' pages too so you have something realistic to compare Luo's numbers to.
  11. You seriously don't see the flaw in your logic there? You're saying Luo is always slow to start and then gets strong while "everyone else" struggles in Jan/Feb. So, you're saying "everyone" has their slump months and that Luo always has his at the same time every season, but then arguing that that's what makes him inconsistent?
  12. I'm not terribly offended at the idea that Luo has to prove himself again. I think given the weird circumstances it does. That being said, I also firmly believe that fans need to get behind him and not pile on top of him. And like others have said, the article's author made a huge oversight leaving Schneider off his "Up & Coming" list. He may have limited experience, but what experience he does have has been impressive enough to warrant attention.
  13. Not surprised by the goalies invited, especially since my top 3 are all there. Seriously, that's a pretty impressive talent pool to choose from.
  14. Looks like we missed out on him. Source: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=425009
  15. I think Bieksa's right that this group of guys wouldn't respond to a Tortorella style coach screaming at them like unruly teenagers. But, he's obviously wrong in thinking they can be counted on to always motivate themselves because we've seen them fail to do that too many times. And Bieksa is one of the worst when it comes to "Well, we almost beat them with a 20-minute effort" type of comments after bad games, making it seem as if his confidence is morphing into undeserved ego. That's not good. Personally, I never minded AV's more father figure style of coaching, I only wished he'd played up on it more. They might not respond to being yelled at, but I would have loved to have seen how they would have responded to him going full on "disappointed dad" on them. Imagine something along the lines of..... "Gee, guys. I just don't know what to say here. I look at all of you and how much you've grown as men and as players and I've been so proud to be your coach and to know you all. But then I see you out there playing like you are tonight, phoning it in like you don't care anymore and I'm confused. With the amount of talent, skill and dedication this group has, I really expected better of you. I just don't know where I went so wrong. I just...I just don't have anything else to say to you right now. I'm just so disappointed."
  16. Depends on whether or not we actually get some PPs.
  17. In fairness, isn't a coaching change sort of following AV's own script? He thinks switching goalies can shake things up enough to get the wins without addressing any other problems. Maybe Gillis is taking one final piece of advice from him and hoping that changing coaches will do the trick.
  18. Wasn't suggesting we should rush into it. Just saying I'll feel better when I know who their replacements will be.
  19. I reluctantly agreed that it was time for a coaching change, but it's still scary now that it's become official without knowing who will be replacing them. Here's hoping we can find exact the coaching staff we need to get the most out of what it still an incredibly talented group of players!
  20. Yes, he is. Garrison may have gotten off to a bit of a slow start on the season, but he's playing very well defensively now. In fact, he even leads our Dmen in +/-. (He's currently at a +9. Tanev, in second place, is a +6. Only Hamhuis and Edler are in the -s.) And game after game he usually gives me at least one reason to shout "Nice, Garrison!" at my TV.
  21. Drybone, I'm not sure what the intent of your snarky message is or even what "basic facts" you think I need to "deal with," especially when at least some of your basic facts aren't facts at all. But thank you for reminding me to add yet another fact to my list above: FACT: The NHL does NOT own the Stanley Cup. Beyond that, what is your point? I don't disagree nor have I argued with the fact that owners are essential. As I said above, they are not any more easily replaced than the players are. And, your point about players being replaced over the course of years is exactly what I said above. So what is your point? As for your last "fact," are you privy to information the rest of the world does not have? If not, how can you possibly claim to see the future and know what players will or won't do or what the future of the union holds? I would say thank you for contributing to the conversation or at least thank you for reading my blog entry, but I'm not sure you really did either.
  22. There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around about the CBA negotiation and related terms. I'm not an expert by any stretch nor do I intend to represent myself as such. However, I do absolutely believe that it is in our best interest as fans to be properly informed if we have even the slimmest of chance of someone listening to our opinion. So below you will hopefully find some useful information to help inform your opinion. To the best of my knowledge, all of this information is correct. But please feel free to not take my word for anything and do some research yourself. Only by educating ourselves can we possibly hope to have an intelligent voice! FACT: The NHL does NOT own the Stanley Cup. It was given to Canada as a gift from Lord Stanley, a former Governor General of Canada. It remains the property of Canada but under the control of a pair of appointed Trustees. They signed an agreement to make it exclusively available to the NHL (despite the fact that doing so actually contradicted the reason for the Cup to begin with, which was to be awarded to the best amateur hockey team) in 1947. However, a lawsuit during the 2005 lockout resulted in a settlement that said the Trustees overstepped their bounds making such an arrangement and that if the NHL does not operate for a year the Cup may be awarded to another league. While they have said that the 2006 settlement does not obligate them to offer it to another league and they are unlikely to do so even during a lockout, any extended NHL lockout could result in another lawsuit that could easily result in the Cup being offered to another league. Resources: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Stanley_Cup http://fullcomment.n...ong-to-the-nhl/ FACT: HRR is NOT "all hockey related revenue." HRR is a legal term, not a common sense one. "Hockey related revenue" sounds like it means any revenue relating to hockey but in reality it was limited to certain types of revenue (such as game tickets, TV deals, rink advertising, merchandising, etc.) minus certain types of deductions (such as concessions, parking, advertising, arena upkeep, etc.) The exact types of revenue to be included and the exact types of deductions (as well as limits on those deductions) were defined in the last CBA and agreed to by both sides. It is fair to note that the allowed deductions did not cover all of the costs, particularly as costs continued to grow, although what percentage of actual costs they represented we don't know. FACT: Teams self reported HRR and were NOT audited. At the end of a season each team was required to fill out a HRR Reporting Package. It was not anything like an audit but rather more like filling out simple tax forms. It included boxes for HRR-included revenue and allowed deductions. These forms were given to an independent accountant (paid for equally by the NHL and NHLPA) by a set date. (Teams that were late turning in these forms could be fined.) The accountant added them together, took off a few more agreed upon deductions at the league level (but did not add any additional revenue, as NHL revenue, such as from franchise expansion or relocation fees, was not included in HRR) and from that came up with what is known as "final HRR." That is the final amount of league wide included revenue minus the allowed deductions. The players' share percentage was determined from the final HRR number. FACT: Players did NOT get 57% of all revenue. As agreed to by both sides in the last CBA, the players' share increased as revenue increased. In the first year (2005) of the last CBA, players' share was 54% of HRR and escalated to 57% in the final year. As stated above, not all revenue is included in HRR and then some deductions are taken off before the players' share was determined from the final HRR number. So, in reality players got a percentage of a portion of revenue. Additionally, it is fair to note that teams were only required to spend to the salary cap floor. The cap floor was intended to ensure a certain amount of revenue was spent on players' salaries in accordance with their HRR share percentage. The cap ceiling was intended to limit how much the players could get. It was entirely up to the individual teams to decide how much they spent within the cap limit. FACT: Escrow payments are delayed salary, NOT additional payments. As agreed in the last CBA, the cap for a season was determined based on a projection based on the revenue from the previous season. However, sometimes the reality was different from what was projected. In recognition of that fact, a portion of every player's salary was held back in an escrow account. (The actual percentage held back was the result of a complicated equation I do not even hope to understand.) At the end of each season an independent account determined the final HRR number and from that number determined what the players' actual share for that season should have been. It was then determined, given what was actually paid when compared to what the players' actual share was that year, who was owed money from the escrow accounts and in what amount. In the event that owners had paid under the players' share of final HRR, all money in the escrow accounts was released to the players. In the event that the owners had paid over the players' share of final HRR, a portion (up to all) of the money in the escrow accounts was refunded to the owners in the amount that they overpaid league wide and the rest (if any) was released to the players. So, for example, if the owners collectively spent 58% of final HRR on salaries in the final year of the last CBA, 1% of all the escrow accounts was returned to the owners and the rest of the money was released to the players. FACT: Players are NOT simply employees. Players are employees of their individual team, but they are also the team's product. If hockey were the product, minor league games would cost as much as NHL games. The reality is players generate revenue not just through playing hockey but also by their names and faces being used in merchandising. A significant portion of every team's revenue comes from merchandise. Yes, teams make big bucks by overcharging for jerseys, but they make even more by charging huge markups for $2 worth of lettering to get a player's name and number on the back. FACT: Players can NOT be easily replaced. Five years from now, iPods may be considered as outdated as the Walk Man. (If you don't know what that is, ask your mom or dad. Or grandma.) Today however, iPods create a significant amount of revenue for Apple. NHL players are similar. Over time, players will be replaced as age or injury ends their career, but the big name players of today are what is generating the most revenue for their teams today. New players are peppered into the league a few at a time to allow them to develop into big name stars, replacing the former big name players as they retire, while the current big name stars are still generating big revenues for their teams. This provides a relatively constant (or even improving) level of talent in the league and ensures a relatively constant (or increasing) amount of revenue generation. FACT: Owners can NOT be easily replaced. Owning a NHL franchise is hardly a quick path to riches and owners certainly know that going in. Many would argue it's a terrible investment outside of a couple of teams that regularly make big profits despite dismal performance. Obviously, owners must buy into franchises for other reasons (i.e. love of the sport, being able to say they own the local sports team, etc.) We have no way of knowing how many people have the ability and desire to buy a NHL franchise. We do know no one seems to want Phoenix, so there can't be that many billionaires beating down the NHL's door. (Although to be fair, what smart business owner does want an ice hockey team in the desert?) FACT: The NHL is NOT losing money on the whole. Prior to the 2004-05 lockout, the average NHL franchise was worth $163.3 million. According to Forbes, the average NHL franchise is valued at $239.83 million, based on the numbers generated from the 2010-2011 season. This means that the average NHL franchise has increased nearly 47% in seven years. This appreciation has easily outpaced the rate of inflation ($1 of 2003 dollars is worth about $1.20 now). Prior to the 2004-05 lockout taking place, the average NHL team was bringing in $74.6 million/year in revenues, for a total of $2.24 billion. In the 2010-11 season, the average NHL team took in $103.5 million in revenues, for a total of $3.1 billion. According to Forbes, the average NHL team posted a net operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of -$3.2 million during the 2003-04 season. According to Forbes, NHL teams lost a total of $96 million during the 2003-04 season. According to Forbes, the average NHL team made $4.29 million last year, for a total of $128.8 million in total net operating income. Source: http://www.davemanue...05-lockout-135/ FACT: Increased team revenue sharing will make most franchises profitable. Team revenue sharing is standard in professional sports. It is used successfully in every other major sports league in North America in recognition of the fact that franchises need other franchises for their team to play against in order to generate revenue. Team revenue sharing was introduced in the NHL during the last CBA. Under the last CBA, "Revenue sharing will see the top ten money-making teams contribute to a pool to be distributed among the bottom 15 teams. Teams in markets with more than 2.5 million television households cannot qualify for revenue sharing. That excludes the Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Flyers, Blackhawks, Mighty Ducks and Kings." (Source: http://proicehockey...._cap_expl_2.htm) Under the NHL's proposed expansion (assuming it doesn't change from their last proposal), as before 6% of actual HRR revenue (for a projected 200 M in the first year) would be shared among the lower teams, with 50% of that revenue coming from the top 10 revenue generating teams. However, limitations relating to market size and percentage of tickets sold would be removed. (It is important to note that after taking over the Phoenix franchise, the NHL allowed that franchise alone to get the "full share" revenue share check despite not meeting the eligibility requirements other teams were forced to meet. That was not popular among some owners and may be the main reason for the change in the NHL's stance this time.) Lowered restrictions mean teams that reported a 2011 loss but weren't eligible for the revenue sharing, like Anaheim (-8.4 M), Dallas (-1.1 M), Los Angeles (-2 M), New Jersey (-6.1 M), NY Islanders (-8.1 M), and San Jose (-7.8 M) to name a few, will be eligible and likely get more than enough to make them profitable. In previous years, a "full share" was $10 M. According to Forbes, 17 teams reported a loss last year. Of those, only 2 reported a loss of more than $10 M. If the projected 200 M (at 6% actual HRR) was shared equally among all 17 teams that reported losing money in 2011, each team would receive $11.76 M. That should make all but 2 teams profitable. In fairness, I don't know if the Forbes numbers include any offset of loss for teams that were eligible and received the team revenue sharing subsidy because the NHL is not very forthright in sharing their financial information. Even if that is the case, however, the fact that so many teams were ineligible before but would be under the proposed agreement still indicates that most franchises would be made profitable by the expanded team revenue sharing even without any additional cost cutting measures. FACT: The NHL and NHLPA are fighting over money we have not yet given them. This may be the most important fact of all for fans. The money we've already given them, their actual earned revenue, is already spent and gone. It's already been split according to the last CBA. What they are fighting about now is how to divide up the money we have yet to give them based on what they project and expect to get. The reality of what they will actually get remains up to us. Only by using our collective power as their source of revenue can we hope to remind both the NHL and players that without us there would be no money to fight over, so they should keep fans in mind the next time they are contemplating a work stoppage of any kind.
  23. NHL Fan Spending Lockout Pledge I pledge to not spend a single penny on anything NHL related during any season where a single game is lost due to a work stoppage of any kind. If an entire season is lost due to a work stoppage of any kind, I pledge to not spend a single penny on anything NHL related for the entire next season. If you don't play, I won't pay! ..... If you agree, take the pledge! Spread the word! Use the graphics! (Just don't claim any of it as your own work!)
  24. While I usually get my Canucks related chuckles from CDC posts, today I got my dose of 'nuck humor via TSN's list of free agents when I saw the following: (source) No matter how you feel about him as a forward, the thought of Dale Weise suiting up as a goalie is funny as &*#@!
  25. Am I the only one who noticed that every game we played in the playoffs this year was on the same day as a Pittsburgh game and that our result (in terms of winning or losing, not the final score) was always the same as theirs? April 11 Pitts - L (4-3) Van - L (4-2) April 13 Pitts - L (8-5) Van - L (4-2) April 15 Pitts - L (8-4) Van - L (1-0) April 18 Pitts - W (10-3) Van - W (3-1) April 20 Pitts - W (3-2) (Vancouver did not play that day.) April 22 Pitts - L (5-1) Van - L (2-1) Of course it doesn't really mean anything. But it is weird.
×
×
  • Create New...