RunningWild Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Some seriously flawed logic in that article, all sorts of face-palms. If the last few yrs in the cap era have taught us anything, it's that you don't need a superstar name, team or goalie to win you a Cup. How many cups do Ovi, Stamkos, Miller and Lundqvist have? How many point per game players did the 2009-10 BlackHawks have - only 1. How many point per game players did the Bruins have - none. The team who wins the cup this yr, how many point per game players will this team have - none (unless Philly wins - then 1). I'm not sure you need the big names, massive point producers, or a big name goalies to win the Cup - you just need depth scoring from all 4 lines and a 'good goalie'. The cap world has skewed the playing field and IMO it puts an emphasis on drafting better than the other guys (something which Gillis hasn't done). Plain and simple, Gillis has to draft better. But by no means is there a 2 yr window, that's just foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmylu1 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Save Percentage Of Final Playoff Game: 2009 - .767 2010 - .857 2011 - .850 2012 - .946 If we have to win in the next 2 years, I'd rather try it with Schneider. Isn't the definition of insanity trying the same thing and expecting a different result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityinFlames Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I love hearing fans and reading stuff about the Canucks and how it mostly turns to doom and gloom. Sure things aren't perfect, but if we are aiming for Detroit standards we can't be far off, sure we don't have the rings to show off, but in 20 years Detroit won 4 cups. Now I remember in 83 Detroit wasn't looking to great and they needed to change things fast. Mike Ilich bought the team and then hired Jim Devellano as the GM who had a plan that a lot of GM's weren't doing at the time and using the draft to his advantage. He was the corner stone to the turn around of Detroit because he and Mike had a plan and they worked on it for many years. It took the Detroit Red Wings 13 + years to win a championship. I know the Canucks on paper don't look to bright, but if MG is committed and the owner is committed to MG plans I am willing to see it through to the end even through the worse times. I am not leaving my seat on the wagon, if people want to jump off I am not going to stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I think some of this article in untrue. 1. If the Sedins really are going to start declining and we'll be out of a first line in 2 years, how is not having prospects a bad thing? If anything, I'd say we should acquire more prospects by trading Luongo. 2. The article states we can't build off of Free-Agency. I point to Phoenix. Also if we end up signing Parise, our Amex line of Booth-Kesler-Parise would be a first line. 3. If the Amex line is going to be our first line, who will be our second line? The Sedins of course! Sure they will be on the decline by the time they hit 33, but then why not re sign them for 4M each and have a couple of good players on the 2nd line while Kassian, Jensen and Schroeder develop? 4. So you're saying we're missing a Norris Caliber D-man to get us the cup? That is why we trade in Lu for a high draft pick...Ryan Murray anyone? Just because this window we have is closing, doesn't mean that we can't look at the future and open up another one. The key for the up coming window to win will be in player development overlapping our stars playing well. In other words, good players on rookie contracts + good stars using the rest of the cap = cup a-la Chicago in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dura_mater Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Save Percentage Of Final Playoff Game: 2009 - .767 2010 - .857 2011 - .850 2012 - .946 If we have to win in the next 2 years, I'd rather try it with Schneider. Isn't the definition of insanity trying the same thing and expecting a different result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soshified Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 As well as Luongo played in his 3 Stanley Cup Final wins last year, he let in 18 in the four losses (despite only playing 8:35 in one of them). Stealing 3 games means nothing if you don't give your team even a chance to win the 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Really agree with this article. Trading Luongo will not free us up a bunch of cap space, most of the cap space it clears up will go to Schneider. We could get a great return from trading Schneider, rather than shipping out Lou and having a slightly better goltender in net. IMO, all you need is a decent goalie with a really determined mindset. The stanley cup winning team is usually backed by a hot goalie who makes a lot of clutch plays in the playoffs. I think Lou will be that guy. Unless the fans here have totally convinced Roberto to leave and he asks for a trade, I will lose all my faith in Gillis as a manager looking to win the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmpunk Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Luongo is a great goalie. However, he's now the 2nd best goalie on his team. Schneider let in 4 goals in 3 full games. (Luongo let in that many in just the first game.) Whether or not the team in front of Cory could outscore 4 goals in 3 full games should not be laid on him. As well as Luongo played in his 3 Stanley Cup Final wins last year, he let in 18 in the four losses (despite only playing 8:35 in one of them). Stealing 3 games means nothing if you don't give your team even a chance to win the 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolutionary Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I believe that the success of the 'Detroit' model, is due to their desire to always be competitive while never sacrificing the future... This being said, the biggest consideration when deciding to trade Luongo or Schneider should be the management group's prognosis of Eddie Lack. I have heard from several writers that there are people in the Canucks camp that feel that Lack is actually better than Schneider - when comparing them to each other at the same point in their AHL careers. If this is true and they feel that Lack will be an elite NHL goalie, then I think moving Schneider is a no brainer as he will undoubtedly garner more in return, and we can get have this talk again when Lack is outperforming Luongo in 4 years or so. If you are unsure of Lack, then I say you have to choose the younger player. However, if Lack is a stud, then take the Schneider return and move Luongo when Lack is ready to take over. However it goes down, I'm sure the Canucks will be well situated in net, and I am glad that I am not the one making the decision!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icycold Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Welcome to Vancouver, they don't call this the goalie grave yard for nothing. Unfortunately this early exit was neither Lou's nor Cor's fault, they both played really well for the most part . Sadly, the team in front of them? Not so much! NO killer instinct as usual... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 can schneider handle the workload in the big league, stats are stats, but roberto is proven he can handle the wear and grind of the reg season and deep into the playoffs. Schneider has one playoff win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolutionary Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Isn't the definition of insanity trying the same thing and expecting a different result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 a solid article, however this has been discussed in forums or speculated by media recently, the vancouver media ( i seldom read or view ) maybe haven't, but around the league it has been brought up, will they deal schneider instead? at some point a gm realizes who is your marquis player of the future, the cornerstone of your franchise an un-moveable part and at some point they will elevate or permit regular minutes for this coveted prize, my guess: it is corey schneider! to add parts to the team, they are gonna have to create some cap space and make BETTER deals than gillis has done in the past, i can see up to 6 players from this current roster to be gone next year, this core's cycle has a shelf life of about 2 - 4 more years to win the cup. an opinion from outside of the box, but that's how i see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaeneir Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Save Percentage Of Final Playoff Game: 2009 - .767 2010 - .857 2011 - .850 2012 - .946 If we have to win in the next 2 years, I'd rather try it with Schneider. Isn't the definition of insanity trying the same thing and expecting a different result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hongcouver Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yes the time to win is now. Unfortunately Buttman still hold the keys to the kingdom and as long as he does, I think it's safe to say it's extremely unlikely a Canadian team is going to be winning a Stanley Cup any time soon. I wish it weren't true, but wishing doesn't change anything. For those of you who don't think hockey is "fixed" you only have to go back to the American/Canadian Women's Gold Medal Game at the 2002 Winter Olympics for evidence that it is. You'll recall the AMERICAN ref calling EIGHT consecutive penalties against Canada, many of them utterly ridiculous in nature. Despite the obvious shaft job in progress, our ladies managed to outplay the other team, and the ref, to win gold. Could the Canucks win a Cup while Hairy Buttman is in charge? Only if they play WAY over their heads and overcome the blatantly biased officiating which always accompanies a Final they may appear in. They have to do what the Women's team did in 2002 and win by SHEAR WILL This team doesn't have near enough of that now. If I were Gillis that would be my main objective this off season. Bring in players who are willing to DIE to win... it's like the scene in Wrath of Grapes where Don is talking to the Colorado GM and saying he wants to play Ron Delorme instead of (some alleged star who has no heart), because "those guys win you games!" We need a team loaded with guys like that because we not only have to beat the other team(s) we have to beat the league too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxLapierreAwesomeFace Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Is it reasonable to assume that Gary Bettman controls who wins the Stanley Cup? This is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. The NHL has lost money this year because there is less Canadian teams playing playoff games. Less viewers and lower ratings. Gary Bettman runs the NHL like a business. You should learn some economics. BTW, Gary Bettman doesn't control the women's hockey championship either, it is an unpaid independent international board completely disconnected from the NHL. Go back to saluting barack obama and waiting for change to come.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snucks Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yes the time to win is now. Unfortunately Buttman still hold the keys to the kingdom and as long as he does, I think it's safe to say it's extremely unlikely a Canadian team is going to be winning a Stanley Cup any time soon. I wish it weren't true, but wishing doesn't change anything. For those of you who don't think hockey is "fixed" you only have to go back to the American/Canadian Women's Gold Medal Game at the 2002 Winter Olympics for evidence that it is. You'll recall the AMERICAN ref calling EIGHT consecutive penalties against Canada, many of them utterly ridiculous in nature. Despite the obvious shaft job in progress, our ladies managed to outplay the other team, and the ref, to win gold. Could the Canucks win a Cup while Hairy Buttman is in charge? Only if they play WAY over their heads and overcome the blatantly biased officiating which always accompanies a Final they may appear in. They have to do what the Women's team did in 2002 and win by SHEAR WILL This team doesn't have near enough of that now. If I were Gillis that would be my main objective this off season. Bring in players who are willing to DIE to win... it's like the scene in Wrath of Grapes where Don is talking to the Colorado GM and saying he wants to play Ron Delorme instead of (some alleged star who has no heart), because "those guys win you games!" We need a team loaded with guys like that because we not only have to beat the other team(s) we have to beat the league too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snucks Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I believe the refs have assignments sometimes to develop or continue story lines. Also, is it just a coincidence that teams that have not won the cup in awhile are making it into the finals? Best way IMO to boost a fanbase is having their team go deep in the playoffs. Look at the western conference atm, all four teams have never won a stanley cup. Furthermore, no matter how bad Canadian teams perform, the market is always big. On the other hand, they have to develop a stronger fanbase in some cities in USA. What do you know? No Canadian team has won the cup since 1993. If there are examples of fixing, such as 2002 womens olypmic finals or the NBA (Donaghy), for sure the NHL would copy. (Afterall, the world is full of copycats) If the NHL can fix games to make more money, they surely will. Heres a interesting video: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Garret's moustache Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Save Percentage Of Final Playoff Game: 2009 - .767 2010 - .857 2011 - .850 2012 - .946 If we have to win in the next 2 years, I'd rather try it with Schneider. Isn't the definition of insanity trying the same thing and expecting a different result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hongcouver Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yeah its run like the WWF. The call it game management now a days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.