HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   The Luongo Thread - "Make it stop, make it stop!" (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1304107)

KISSland 12-07-2012 01:49 AM

The Luongo Thread - "Make it stop, make it stop!"
 
Last thread is well over 1000 posts.

http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/imag...812157-000.jpg

Continue!

Taelin 12-07-2012 01:52 AM

I agree with the thread title.

Amused To Death 12-07-2012 01:59 AM

I want a season almost solely for a resolution of this Lou situation.

Chairman Maouth 12-07-2012 02:00 AM

Thanks Figz.

craigcaulks* 12-07-2012 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amused To Death (Post 56332089)
I want a season almost solely for a resolution of this Lou situation.

Will you buy a Gardiner jersey or a JVR jersey?

Taelin 12-07-2012 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigcaulks (Post 56332121)
Will you buy a Gardiner jersey or a JVR jersey?

Rielly. :sarcasm:

Amused To Death 12-07-2012 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigcaulks (Post 56332121)
Will you buy a Gardiner jersey or a JVR jersey?

I don't buy 200 dollar jerseys...I do give epic high-fives though.

craigcaulks* 12-07-2012 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taelin (Post 56332149)
Rielly. :sarcasm:

If you have a Ballard jersey, you'll just need to change the name!! Unless he goes with 44,...

craigcaulks* 12-07-2012 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amused To Death (Post 56332153)
I don't buy 200 dollar jerseys...I do give epic high-fives though.

I meant to say "steal".

Bourne Endeavor 12-07-2012 02:12 AM

"Do you think any of those players is of an equivalent calibre to Luongo? I don't. He will be the best player in the deal, which means VAN will lose it." - Bleach

I suppose we have a different definition for the term. Those players would impact our roster more than Luongo, especially if Lupul proved to be more than a one season wonder. What caliber Luongo brings to Toronto by comparison is irrelevant for me, provided we end up the better team.

Outside99* 12-07-2012 02:22 AM

Tough decision for Gillis, so many variables to consider, information to collect, weigh the pros and cons of each option, negotiate the best possible deal, evaluate the input from the advisors/influencers, get the player(s) the team needs, replenish the prospect pool, make the owner happy, do what's right for Luongo, keep the fans happy, etc...

One thing I like about a trade with Toronto is the Canucks's Ontario scouts would probably have something to say about their prospects and I'd have a tendency to trust their input based on their recent track record.

Most important thing (IMO) other than keeping the owner happy is to figure out what the elephant in the room is - easier said than done.

Bleach Clean 12-07-2012 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor (Post 56332227)
"Do you think any of those players is of an equivalent calibre to Luongo? I don't. He will be the best player in the deal, which means VAN will lose it." - Bleach

I suppose we have a different definition for the term. Those players would impact our roster more than Luongo, especially if Lupul proved to be more than a one season wonder. What caliber Luongo brings to Toronto by comparison is irrelevant for me, provided we end up the better team.



You'll end up the better team if you trade Luongo or Schneider per that logic, but that still doesn't address asset value.



Schneider could have been dealt last deadline. The team could have been better off for it as they would have upgraded at forward. Gillis didn't do it. The reason: asset value out does not equal asset value in. IMO, that's why he held onto Schneider. Not team need, but asset value.


Loosing a deal is about assets in vs. assets out, not about the overall team dynamic. As soon as you send the best player out in the deal, you are likely never going to see an equivalent impact player coming back. Even if there are prospects involved. Odds are stacked against you.


I continue to agree with Canucker and Tiranis on this point, as I've seen it too many times in the NHL not to put stock into it.

craigcaulks* 12-07-2012 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleach Clean (Post 56332319)
Loosing a deal is about assets in vs. assets out, not about the overall team dynamic. As soon as you send the best player out in the deal, you are likely never going to see an equivalent impact player coming back. Even if there are prospects involved. Odds are stacked against you.

If that asset is going to be sitting on the bench it doesn't matter how good you think he is. Your definition of winning/losing a deal is far too simple to be useful. Of course getting the better player is nice, but there are far more factors to consider. This is not a hockey pool.

Boston sent the best player out in the Kessel deal. Who won?

Canucker 12-07-2012 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigcaulks (Post 56332407)
If that asset is going to be sitting on the bench it doesn't matter how good you think he is. Your definition of winning/losing a deal is far too simple to be useful. Of course getting the better player is nice, but there are far more factors to consider. This is not a hockey pool.

Boston sent the best player out in the Kessel deal. Who won?

If we can get the #2 pick for Luongo I'd help him pack and buy him a 1st class ticket out of here.

craigcaulks* 12-07-2012 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canucker (Post 56332455)
If we can get the #2 pick for Luongo I'd help him pack and buy him a 1st class ticket out of here.

Except that wasn't the deal when it was made.


Would you give me a $50 bill for 3 $20 bills? Apparently some people wouldn't.

Wilch 12-07-2012 02:45 AM

I want Gillis to gamble and trade for TOR's 2013 1st.

Roll the dice, if we land a lottery pick we'll be set for a while.

Bleach Clean 12-07-2012 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigcaulks (Post 56332407)
If that asset is going to be sitting on the bench it doesn't matter how good you think he is. Your definition of winning/losing a deal is far too simple to be useful. Of course getting the better player is nice, but there are far more factors to consider. This is not a hockey pool.

Boston sent the best player out in the Kessel deal. Who won?




Who won the BOS deal? Who's the better player? Kessel or Seguin? That should tell you.



The best player is the best player is the best player. Doesn't matter if he's sitting on the bench or if he's playing on the 4th line of a stacked team. It's a simple idiom because it's accurate. The only real exception is when the sender receives a top2-3 pick that is _expected_ to be better in the very near future. But then as Canucker has pointed out, if we're getting the #2 overall pick for this years draft for Lu, we'd all be happy with that. Reason? Because that player is likely to become as good or better than Luongo currently is.

Bleach Clean 12-07-2012 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigcaulks (Post 56332479)
Except that wasn't the deal when it was made.


Would you give me a $50 bill for 3 $20 bills? Apparently some people wouldn't.



We had no idea where that pick would end up at the time of the trade. So that is a factor. Burke was foolish for doing it given that he couldn't predict the variance of the pick... As has been said, if it was known to be a #2 pick, the resulting player is _likely_ to become as good or better than Kessel -- which still proves the point.

Canucker 12-07-2012 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigcaulks (Post 56332479)
Except that wasn't the deal when it was made.


Would you give me a $50 bill for 3 $20 bills? Apparently some people wouldn't.

Not a very good analogy. Would you give me a $50 bill if i gave you 3 bills of unknown value? That would be more accurate in that case.

Outside99* 12-07-2012 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilch (Post 56332501)
I want Gillis to gamble and trade for TOR's 2013 1st.

Roll the dice, if we land a lottery pick we'll be set for a while.

When I think of the potential untouchables on the Leafs wr to a trade for Luongo - Kessel, Grabovski, Gardiner, Rielly, Biggs, 2013 1st, etc...

I feel there are too many...

Bleach Clean 12-07-2012 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canucker (Post 56332545)
Not a very good analogy. Would you give me a $50 bill if i gave you 3 bills of unknown value? That would be more accurate in that case.



Are you a remedial HFer Canucker? CC's analogies are above reproach. How dare you question them? :laugh:


Anyways, I just can't fathom how some would still believe that rounding out a team brings more value than the quality of assets returned? It just doesn't make sense. Given the turnover in rosters, year to year, odds are those supplementary pieces move out eventually, and then you're left with... Nothing.


A prime example of this is the Thornton deal. He was the best player in that deal, and every one of the pieces he returned eventually were shed off the BOS roster... Leaving them with nothing.


It's all about quality. It always has been.

StringerBell 12-07-2012 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outside99 (Post 56332715)
When I think of the potential untouchables on the Leafs wr to a trade for Luongo - Kessel, Grabovski, Gardiner, Rielly, Biggs, 2013 1st, etc...

I feel there are too many...

Is Biggs really untouchable for Lu? That's the prospect (outside of Reilly) I would be most interested in, and I haven't heard many Leafs fans take him off the table. I'm in full agreement with Gillis on the direction of getting bigger and younger, and would be looking for something like Biggs, Holzer, 2014 1st.

I've also realized that we're likely ****ed with regards to the salary cap when it drops, so taking on any salary won't be very helpful down the road. The best action for Gillis to take is deal Luongo when the CBA is settled for big, young prospects who can contribute on ELC's in the future.

Outside99* 12-07-2012 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StringerBell (Post 56333061)
Is Biggs really untouchable for Lu? That's the prospect (outside of Reilly) I would be most interested in, and I haven't heard many Leafs fans take him off the table. I'm in full agreement with Gillis on the direction of getting bigger and younger, and would be looking for something like Biggs, Holzer, 2014 1st.

I've also realized that we're likely ****ed with regards to the salary cap when it drops, so taking on any salary won't be very helpful down the road. The best action for Gillis to take is deal Luongo when the CBA is settled for big, young prospects who can contribute on ELC's in the future.

I might have imagined Burke saying that :laugh:

I've only seen Biggs play once but was reasonably impressed with what I saw.

Reverend Mayhem 12-07-2012 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleach Clean (Post 56332731)
Are you a remedial HFer Canucker? CC's analogies are above reproach. How dare you question them? :laugh:

:bow:

me2 12-07-2012 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleach Clean (Post 56332731)
Are you a remedial HFer Canucker? CC's analogies are above reproach. How dare you question them? :laugh:


Anyways, I just can't fathom how some would still believe that rounding out a team brings more value than the quality of assets returned? It just doesn't make sense. Given the turnover in rosters, year to year, odds are those supplementary pieces move out eventually, and then you're left with... Nothing.


A prime example of this is the Thornton deal. He was the best player in that deal, and every one of the pieces he returned eventually were shed off the BOS roster... Leaving them with nothing.


It's all about quality. It always has been.

Exactly. It's not a $50 for 3x$20, it's a $50 + 2 other notes you get somewhere else for 3x$20. An 80 point player plus a couple of avg ufas beats 3 30 point forwards.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.