avelanch Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 get over it... and get over Hodgson while you're at it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Sorry, you guys are right, 2nd overall picks for the last decade have been hard to go wrong with. By all rights, the guy should be able to slide right in. I am just skeptical because when I think draft picks I think of young boys and not men. I thought I remembered people saying Nugent-Hopkins might have been too small for NHL (and he was 1st overall, although he did surprise everyone). But yeah, wouldn't mind a Landeskog, Hedmen, Doughty, JVR, J Staal, B Ryan, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Garret's moustache Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The idea of trading Schneider is pretty smart. Pros: probably better return Luongo regains confidence Management shows confidence retain a solid, experienced starter Luongo has had his best years with somebody not pressuring his starting minutes The group will have one go to guy Cons: Don't gain cap space Luongo is getting older Luongo may crap the bed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 lol? a little defensive, aren't we? Lord help anyone who has a linden, bure, maclean, etc. avatar... at least cody's still playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stark Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 If Ryan Suter doesn't sign with nashville this summer, Weber is going to want out as well, it's been said many times... so they'll want to get something in return for him before his contract expires next summer and he gets off the hook scott-free. I see your point that some other teams might offer some more valuable parts, but Ballard and Tanev (along with a couple of other players) are not a bad offer. Ballard really just desperately need a fresh start, he was florida's top D-man for years and that was when he was younger and had less experience. He just got off to a bad start in Vancity and coach V never stopped suffocating him. Tanev is already showing really good signs of a smart D-man, he just needs to bulk up and get more experience and he could very well be a top 4 D-man as well, it's really not that far-fetched for him. I realize that other teams could offer more but its a bidding process, we also have lots of extra players that we can give them (Ebbett, Reinprecht, Weise, Raymond if we have to...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Um, Boston wasn't a bad team at all, but Tyler Seguin made their team. I think people underrating the odds of a #2 overall pick being an impact player right away. The odds are quite high. The only players drafted at that spot to not make the team immediately have been Zyuzin, Tverdovsky and a couple goalies. #2 overall picks are usually 'can't miss' players. Sedin didn't play a minute in the minors. Linden didn't play a minute in the minors. Neither did Nedved. If a player drafted that high has to play in the minors, then he's a bust. No matter what team he's on. Cheers. TOML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naslund.is.king Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 My apologies... it just seems like in every single thread I've ever read there's always someone pointing out that a similar thread has been made before. I just got tired of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehamburglar Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 MayRay at 1.3 million? Alright. More, let him walk. Trade Schnieds yes. I do not want to have him break down, which might not happen but if Lack has to take the #1 spot, could affect his progress and undo everything. Luongo is our man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underachieving Hero of CDC Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Really weird that people are saying the reason to keep Luongo is because we need to win now, not in the future. Shouldnt we be keeping the goalie that IS playing better right now? We all know who that is. Schneider isn't a kid anymore. He's going to be 27 years old next season, entering the prime of his career. Is there risk in choosing him over Luongo? Obviously there is going to be inherent risk in any move you make here. The difference is that through the last 2 years (and even the 2 AHL years before that), Schneider has given his critics absolutely NOTHING. He has played in the most pressure-packed games that the team has encountered and the collapse that his detractors were predicting simply never came to pass. In fact, he put up an incredible 1.31 GAA and .96 sv% over the 3 games he played in the playoffs this year (stats that rank above every other goalie on every single one of the 16 playoff teams). People who are saying what a risky move it is to keep Schneider clearly aren't basing their assertion on anything they're seeing on the ice. Lets take a quick look at the other side of the coin. Is keeping Luongo the risk-free move? He comes with a hefty cap hit so right there is big risk. If he underperforms, he cripples the team because Gillis doens't have the money to shore up weak areas elsewhere. Aside from that, the real risk comes in hoping that Luongo won't repeat his mental breakdowns that he suffered against Boston and Chicago last year, Chicago the year before that, and yes, Chicago again the year before that. The only post-season that hasn't seen a Luongo-related catastrophe in the last 4 years was this year when he was only given 2 games. You might put aside all that and continue to rely on Luongo's "superstar" status, real or imagined, but you have to admit, there IS risk there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naslund.is.king Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Really weird that people are saying the reason to keep Luongo is because we need to win now, not in the future. Shouldnt we be keeping the goalie that IS playing better right now? We all know who that is. Schneider isn't a kid anymore. He's going to be 27 years old next season, entering the prime of his career. Is there risk in choosing him over Luongo? Obviously there is going to be inherent risk in any move you make here. The difference is that through the last 2 years (and even the 2 AHL years before that), Schneider has given his critics absolutely NOTHING. He has played in the most pressure-packed games that the team has encountered and the collapse that his detractors were predicting simply never came to pass. In fact, he put up an incredible 1.31 GAA and .96 sv% over the 3 games he played in the playoffs this year (stats that rank above every other goalie on every single one of the 16 playoff teams). People who are saying what a risky move it is to keep Schneider clearly aren't basing their assertion on anything they're seeing on the ice. Lets take a quick look at the other side of the coin. Is keeping Luongo the risk-free move? He comes with a hefty cap hit so right there is big risk. If he underperforms, he cripples the team because Gillis doens't have the money to shore up weak areas elsewhere. Aside from that, the real risk comes in hoping that Luongo won't repeat his mental breakdowns that he suffered against Boston and Chicago last year, Chicago the year before that, and yes, Chicago again the year before that. The only post-season that hasn't seen a Luongo-related catastrophe in the last 4 years was this year when he was only given 2 games. You might put aside all that and continue to rely on Luongo's "superstar" status, real or imagined, but you have to admit, there IS risk there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.