VforVasili Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 I loved Gillis' comment about the crystal ball so had to include that in my thread title, because none of us know all the details and are just making our best guesses as to what happened or would have happened if things were done differently. Here is my best guess as to what the game plan is for our goal tending situation. When Gillis and ownership realized that Luongo was not tradeable and would need to be bought out, they looked at the situation and saw that one of three things would happen over the next season if they traded Schneider: Luongo could play well and be happy playing for the Canucks, in which case he would be kept by the Canucks for years to come. Luongo could play well but be unhappy playing for the Canucks, in which case they would have another opportunity in a year to trade him for assets, without the “backup” label and stench of desperation influencing the result, especially if he plays lights out in the Olympics. Luongo could struggle, in which case they can buy him out next year with one year less of wasted salary for ownership to eat, and another year of experience for one of our Swedish goaltenders, who may even prove themselves enough to become our starter. My point is that I can see why this was a more palatable prospect for ownership than buying out Luongo and eating a huge amount of his salary for nothing. All it costs is one high risk year for us fans, but I am sure that was more desirable to ownership than the buyout plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Industrious1 Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 I couldn't see ownership buying out Luongo next year if they won't this year. Taking one season off the books for a buyout wouldn't be attractive enough for Faq. Also....having one of our Swedish goalies perform well enough to replace Roberto would be like lightning striking the same spot twice (after the whole Schneider situation). As for trading Lu, this has already proven exceedingly difficult and if he puts in a poor performance next season...it won't increase his attractiveness to other clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 We would just look even sillier to buyout Luongo next year as it won't be a compliance buyout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyking Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 We would just look even sillier to buyout Luongo next year as it won't be a compliance buyout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 We would just look even sillier to buyout Luongo next year as it won't be a compliance buyout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaBestPlaceOnEarth Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Well, hindsight being 20-20, we oughta traded Schneider at the draft before the playoffs when we played LA, make it clear Lu was the guy back then and none of this would have happened, might have gotten some guys back to help in those playoffs. That's what Don Cherry says and in retrospect it would have been the best play. Hindsight also being 20-20, I kinda misunderstood the topic here...I think Lu comes back with a vengeance and shows all the doubters and people who dragged him down what he can still do. Plays at Sochi, plays well here, makes everyone look stupid and calls em all out on it. He could have a great second act, he's come through the fire in the most ridiculous way, anything he runs into with Tortorella or the press has got to look pretty tame now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 There's a fine line between one ounce of foresight and a crystal ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Bold moves, hindsight, crystal ball, changing landscape..... Mike Gillis Or Bad flashback.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VforVasili Posted July 1, 2013 Author Share Posted July 1, 2013 I guess the point was that while there is plenty of risk in giving Lu a year to regain his form, surely taking that risk was better than throwing in the towel from our ownerships perspective. They retain the option of a compliance buyout next year if the risk doesn't work out as they and I hope it will. I think Luongo will thrive under Torts, just as Schneider would have. Our team defense was the real problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobopan Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 I don't think a 8 year contract with a 35 year old Luongo would be any more appealing than the current one. No team is going to trade for him next year if it doesn't work out here this upcoming season. It would be another embarrassment for MG who already is the biggest laughing stock of the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Wish I had a crystal ball too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raph Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Bold moves, hindsight, crystal ball, changing landscape..... Mike Gillis Or Bad flashback.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Ill make it short and simple. Luongo is better than Cory. He's an elite goalie. Cory hasn't done Jack in his career ... luongo is our #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Ill make it short and simple. Luongo is better than Cory. He's an elite goalie. Cory hasn't done Jack in his career ... luongo is our #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.