Baggins Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 that's it. I shouldn't have engage a debate with an idiot. You literally just throw away every part of my arguments and go back to your own cycle of idiotic comments. I thought I already explain to you that leaving him in the net will not effect his GAA as much as his SV%... instead i was spammed with a block of text with unbelievably grammars and logic. O well, my fault really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Ah the irony.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get real canuck fans Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 If I recall, Lou can ask to be traded after 5 years, the team can trade him after 7 years. But considering they just spent a year trying to trade him, the odds are, he's not going anywhere regardless of outs. Btw, Bettman doesn't get to arbitrarily decide the CBA. It does require an owners majority which obviously happened. In other words it was the owners majority that wanted to penalize those that circumvented the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisbanks Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 that's it. I shouldn't have engage a debate with an idiot. You literally just throw away every part of my arguments and go back to your own cycle of idiotic comments. I thought I already explain to you that leaving him in the net will not effect his GAA as much as his SV%... instead i was spammed with a block of text with unbelievably bad grammars and logic. O well, my fault really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 So if you love Lu, well you know it can't be bad & if he's not through, well you know you should be glad-oooo & with a glove like that, you know, you shoullld-BE GLAD!!! Yeah, yeah,yeah(repeat & fade).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surtur Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 If I recall, Lou can ask to be traded after 5 years, the team can trade him after 7 years. But considering they just spent a year trying to trade him, the odds are, he's not going anywhere regardless of outs. Btw, Bettman doesn't get to arbitrarily decide the CBA. It does require an owners majority which obviously happened. In other words it was the owners majority that wanted to penalize those that circumvented the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 He's 34 and makes $6.7 million per season until age 39. If he's two years younger, the contract doesn't look so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Term and he's dreadful in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Media made it bad (timing of events as reported). Up until Cory Schneider looked like a cheaper alternative they all spouted off about how unfair it was to get a world class goalie at such a low cap hit. Then CS developed into a solid starter for about a mil and a half cheaper, so the circus began...the media circus. If you think Lu agreed for one second that his contract sucks your kidding yourself...Lu LOVES his contract. He was only playing media friendly. If GMMG offered Lu for a 7th rounder he would have been gone...but he was trying to get something decent in return. Granted with the NEW rules put in place within the last 12 months, his contract doesn't look as good (retro cap rule) but the whole media circus thing started long before that rule was made public. And let's face it, behind closed doors for all we know the Board of Governors started talking about the recapture rule long before it was written into the CBA. Therefore other GMs would have become a little gun-shy since they knew a long time ago that a rule change was coming...probably back around the time that CS got good and GMMG started shopping Lu...so in a nutshell...timing made Lu contract bad...not the contract or the player involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButcherG Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I don't think his contract is bad at all. I simply see the NHL being saturated with goaltending, and its easy to find with free agency. Also the Leafs were in need of Luongo but they didn't want to give anything up for him. And the media is based and biased in the east, as we should be well aware of by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 hahah you brought up his stats so i brought up his GAA wich is a stat you said being left in for blow outs hurt his stats .. i explained to you being pulled half way throught the game at 4ga is the same as staying in the whole time for 8 or same with S% 4 goals on 20 shots or stays in and faces 40 shots and lets in 8 not much different S% so being left in or pulled doesnt make much of a difference as you would like to think but thats simple math that i wouldnt expect you to figure out............ do u uderstand what a decline is? his stats last year were worse than 2012 his stats in 2012 were worse than 2011 hahah yes their are ups and downs but when u go 2 straight years of falling stats its called a decline!!!!! get over it already when year after year his numbers get worse it is the websters definition of a decline... there is no argument about it .. its the english language if you were to draw it on a graph is the line inclining? going straight? or declining? oh its in a decline!!!! i dont understand why you cant comprehend the word or the definition of it ... until his stats are better or the same as the year befor he is technically in a decline .... if you have an off month or week its a slump if you slip for 1 year its just a bad year you slip in 2 straight years its called a decline.... you bring up ovechkin here is an example of a decline.... since his career 65 goal season his goals were in a decline the following 3 years... becasue he went 65 g >56 g > 32 g > 30 g then his decline stopped because they went up to 32g do you get it now???? if numbers go down year after year in succession its a decline!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindenBurrows Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Contract length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindenBurrows Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Enter Button Mother F***ER Do You Speak It!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Good/bad contract; good/bad stats: doesn't really matter anymore. Everything hinges on how Lu will respond to returning to a team he had already 'moved on' from. He is obviously deeply disappointed in this outcome. The controversy will not end and the media circus will continue to follow him around. He will be under more pressure this coming season than whatever he has experienced to date. Not only does he have to get his head around the fact that he is back in Van, he will be under the microscope for every game. The boo birds and nasty media will be all over him if he has a bad game or lets in a soft goal that loses a game. The expectations will be ridiculously high. I hated seeing Schneids go as much as anyone, but what's done is done. If the fans really are true fans of this team, they will support their goalie and cheer him on. If Lu falters, the whole team falters. Give the guy a chance to except his reality and get his game together. We are all Canucks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrogZilla Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I didn't think his contract was bad until I saw what the recapture hit would become. From Canucks army http://canucksarmy.c...capture-penalty If he retired now it wouldn't be too bad, but the longer he plays the worse it gets. If he plays 5 more years it will become a serious handicap to the team in the future. Honestly after seeing the penalty the Canucks are going to get hit with in the future, I'm hoping Luo refuses to report & they can just take the $825K hit for the next 10 years. If they aren't going to buy him out, then Luo refusing to report would be the best resolution in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisbanks Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Enter Button Mother F***ER Do You Speak It!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I believe this to be false if Gary wants something all he needs is 8 owners to back him not a majority to pass anything or do anything he wants .... if everything was majority rules i think we would be seeing a completely different NHL right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winthecup Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I can see Luongo's contract being attractive to teams that want to get to the cap floor without having to pay alot of salary. after this year, Luongo has 4 years of $6.7 M salary but after that it goes to $3.3M, then to $1.6 M and then to $1M for the final 2 years....with the slary floor probably going up, why wouldnt a cheap team want a player that gives them a $5.3M cap hit but only have to pay $3.3M-$1M for the last 4 years of his contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.