HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

The Luongo Thread: We're doing 65, so we should be there in a billion years...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-31-2012, 11:52 PM
  #76
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 14,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Bolland is a nice piece, but how does he perform when he's not playing against the Sedins? I think his offensive numbers dip a bit (playoff numbers). He's still a nice luxury.

I don't know if I prefer Hjalmarsson over Ballard, but having them both on the bottom pairing and forcing one to play out of position doesn't sound like a good move to me.
If you can perform against the best offensive and defensive team in the NHL, going head to head with Art Ross winners there's no reason you shouldn't be able to win other tough matchups. The Canucks aren't the only team Bolland has played well against come playoff time.

There are still teams needing to spend a fair bit of money to get to the cap floor - a handful of them also need defensemen. I would deal Ballard or Hjalmarsson, depending on the offers. Could see Hjalmarsson garnering a decent top 9 forward.

I don't see any realistic roster player targets out of Toronto or Florida that would trump a return of David Bolland. If you can get him, you do it IMO. Especially when you consider Kesler has been healthy once in the last 4 years we've been in the playoffs. There needs to be insurance in case his body can't hold up and I don't see anyone on our roster or in the pipeline that could fill that void.

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:02 AM
  #77
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,069
vCash: 500
Why would anyone in their right mind deal Luongo to Chicago for Dave Bolland? The guy is a 3rd liner who makes $3M+, has said idiotic things in the media, and is only signed for 2 more years, one of which may well be lost to a lockout.

Add to that the fact that a conference rival is drastically improved by the deal. If Gillis deals Lu to Chicago it has to be for one of Hossa, Kane, or Sharp. Otherwise send him out east.

Chubros is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:03 AM
  #78
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,580
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
If you can perform against the best offensive and defensive team in the NHL, going head to head with Art Ross winners there's no reason you shouldn't be able to win other tough matchups. The Canucks aren't the only team Bolland has played well against come playoff time.

There are still teams needing to spend a fair bit of money to get to the cap floor - a handful of them also need defensemen. I would deal Ballard or Hjalmarsson, depending on the offers. Could see Hjalmarsson garnering a decent top 9 forward.

I don't see any realistic roster player targets out of Toronto or Florida that would trump a return of David Bolland. If you can get him, you do it IMO. Especially when you consider Kesler has been healthy once in the last 4 years we've been in the playoffs. There needs to be insurance in case his body can't hold up and I don't see anyone on our roster or in the pipeline that could fill that void.
Bolland has 17 points in 19 playoff games agains the Canucks in his career. Against everyone else he has 20 points in 30 games. Still good numbers, but he has absolutely owned the Canucks/Sedins when matched up against us.

__________________
May 17, 2014: The day nightlife changes in Vancouver...ask me how.
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:05 AM
  #79
Bieksallent
Registered User
 
Bieksallent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
Why would anyone in their right mind deal Luongo to Chicago for Dave Bolland? The guy is a 3rd liner who makes $3M+, has said idiotic things in the media, and is only signed for 2 more years, one of which may well be lost to a lockout.

Add to that the fact that a conference rival is drastically improved by the deal. If Gillis deals Lu to Chicago it has to be for one of Hossa, Kane, or Sharp. Otherwise send him out east.
Agreed. I don't mind if we have to add to the deal to get one of those players but no way do they keep all of them and add their missing piece in Luongo. Sure, it improves us but not nearly as much as it makes Chicago world beaters.

Bieksallent is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:07 AM
  #80
Hodgy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I don't know if I prefer Hjalmarsson over Ballard, but having them both on the bottom pairing and forcing one to play out of position doesn't sound like a good move to me.
It is kind of irrelevant which player you prefer in this situation, because it is abundantly clear that Vigneault would prefer a player like Hjalmarsson.

Hodgy is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:19 AM
  #81
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 14,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
Why would anyone in their right mind deal Luongo to Chicago for Dave Bolland?
Because the Hawks would be a wreck without Bolland and Hjalmarsson. The Canucks would matchup better against Chicago after this deal then they do right now.

Look no further than the Hawks record against us with and without Bolland in the lineup to see what this move does to them. Their centre depth with Bolland is poor. As is their defense depth with Hjalmarsson.

Luongo didn't outperform the collective work of Khabibulin, Niemi and Crawford in our last 3 head to head matchups with the Hawks. Wouldn't be worried about him significantly outplaying Schneider if we meet again. Certainly not enough to overcome our massive edge up the middle of the ice and on defense.

Luongo can only do so much if he plays in front of a club with poor team defense. That's the position he would find himself in Chicago, especially if Bolland is out of the mix.

This move fills one of their holes while opening up a couple more. This move fills a major hole in Vancouver while not taking anything away from our starting lineup. Big difference there.

The question then becomes - why would the Hawks give us such a valuable skater that fills a massive organizational need? One that dominates us in head to head matchups...

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:31 AM
  #82
Socratic Method Man
Registered User
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,517
vCash: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Because the Hawks would be a wreck without Bolland and Hjalmarsson. The Canucks would matchup better against Chicago after this deal then they do right now.

Look no further than the Hawks record against us with and without Bolland in the lineup to see what this move does to them. Their centre depth with Bolland is poor. As is their defense depth with Hjalmarsson.

Luongo didn't outperform the collective work of Khabibulin, Niemi and Crawford in our last 3 head to head matchups with the Hawks. Wouldn't be worried about him significantly outplaying Schneider if we meet again. Certainly not enough to overcome our massive edge up the middle of the ice and on defense.

Luongo can only do so much if he plays in front of a club with poor team defense. That's the position he would find himself in Chicago, especially if Bolland is out of the mix.

This move fills one of their holes while opening up a couple more. This move fills a major hole in Vancouver while not taking anything away from our starting lineup. Big difference there.

The question then becomes - why would the Hawks give us such a valuable skater that fills a massive organizational need? One that dominates us in head to head matchups...
It's easier to find 3rd liners and 3rd pairing dmen then it is to find star players. If we deal Luongo to Chicago without getting a star player back, then Chicago will find a way to fill out their depth, and then they will be a team full of stars, with depth, and with a star goalie. It would not be a good thing.

Not to mention if we give up a star goalie for a third liner we lose the trade big time, imo, regardless of the fact that it's Chicago.

Socratic Method Man is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:48 AM
  #83
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 14,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
It's easier to find 3rd liners and 3rd pairing dmen then it is to find star players. If we deal Luongo to Chicago without getting a star player back, then Chicago will find a way to fill out their depth, and then they will be a team full of stars, with depth, and with a star goalie. It would not be a good thing.

Not to mention if we give up a star goalie for a third liner we lose the trade big time, imo, regardless of the fact that it's Chicago.
It's easy to find 3rd liners, it's just not easy to find 3rd liners anywhere close to Dave Bolland. He's arguably the best in the business in that role.

Bolland has been every bit the impact player as Luongo has the last handful of years in the playoffs IMO. We don't lose that trade if Bolland performs in the playoffs anywhere close to where he has over the course of his career.

Bolland has scored at a 50 point pace twice in his career in the regular season and over a 60 point pace in his career in the playoffs. IMO his ability is more in line with that of a 2nd line centre than that of a 3rd line centre. He's just so strong in defensive situations that his coach likes to put him out for a lot of defensive zone faceoffs going head to head with the opposition's best players.

I have yet to hear any names of roster players from Toronto or Florida that would add more to our team than Bolland. And I've posed the question a half dozen times...

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 01:12 AM
  #84
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
It's easier to find 3rd liners and 3rd pairing dmen then it is to find star players. If we deal Luongo to Chicago without getting a star player back, then Chicago will find a way to fill out their depth, and then they will be a team full of stars, with depth, and with a star goalie. It would not be a good thing.

Not to mention if we give up a star goalie for a third liner we lose the trade big time, imo, regardless of the fact that it's Chicago.
I tend to agree with this. Bolland is a decent enough player, but I have no interest in making Chicago better and only taking a good 3rd liner and bottom pairing defenseman in return.

Canucker is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 01:48 AM
  #85
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,580
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgy View Post
It is kind of irrelevant which player you prefer in this situation, because it is abundantly clear that Vigneault would prefer a player like Hjalmarsson.
How is that clear? Have you spoken to Vigneault?

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 03:14 AM
  #86
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I tend to agree with this. Bolland is a decent enough player, but I have no interest in making Chicago better and only taking a good 3rd liner and bottom pairing defenseman in return.
I find this thinking pretty stupid.

We make the best trade that we can. If it makes us better and them better oh well, its not like the odds of us meeting in the playoffs are even all that good.

I'd rather get Bolland+Hjmarlson+1st than a 1st+Colborne+? from TOR...at least the pieces we'd get from CHI would help us now.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 03:52 AM
  #87
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
It's more than just fans that value top prospects, it's the GM's as well. There's a reason Bjugstad is apparently the sticking point and Tallon won't let him go.

How many 30 + year olds did the Canucks have on their list of players they would accept in return for Cody Hodgson?

I would take Bolland and Hjalmarsson for Luongo in a heartbeat. That's an excellent deal for us.


What part of this are you not understanding? (from canucksarmy.com)


"now we've heard that the Canucks were offered Bolland, and walked away from the deal."

http://canucksarmy.com/2012/7/16/str...-bolland-offer


If Gillis thought as you did, Lu would already be gone for Bolland. What now?






On your question about Hodgson: What prime PFs are moving for Hodgson? Edit: saw others already put this question out there.






No kidding, GMs value prospects. No revelation there. But in what sensible world is a prospect worth an elite NHL player right now? Did Erixon not just get traded in a package for Nash? Teams know when they deal assets like Lu, they are taking on the lesser return, not the other way around. A prospect =/= NHL player.


Bjugstad is not an NHL player. The pros get their flaws picked apart. Have to endure teams scouting their weaknesses. Have to constantly adjust. NB is a dream right now. He's the perfect, realized version of himself that fans are holding onto, and it skews values to a ridiculous degree... Soft as butter... skating issues... but no one says anything about that. Curious no? Hell, I'm sure Shawn Matthias was thought of as a future PF C hall of famer at one point. The NHL has a way of knocking expectations down. Bjugstad has yet to feel that, truly. Potential is a great thing.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 08-01-2012 at 04:02 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 09:19 AM
  #88
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 9,807
vCash: 500
Doesn't matter if it is the new ownership or the old, if the Leafs miss the playoffs Burke is gone at the end of the year.

He knows this and he also knows the reason they missed the playoffs last year was mainly because of goaltending. The question is can he fix that goaltending? As a GM that is easily his biggest weakness. But in Luongo he has about as much of a sure thing as you can possibly get so I expect he will improve his offers to a point that they are attractive enough. Whether they are good enough to beat other offers I don't know given I don't think the Leafs have much to offer to the canucks.

On the Panthers...Tallon was NOT happy with his goaltending in the first round. It was, I believe, both Pierre LeBrun and Pierre MacGuire that mentioned coming out of that series that the Panthers felt goaltending did cost them. That is the last memory Tallon has of Theodore. He wants an upgrade to the goaltending but to do so means he has to move Theodore. In order to move Theodore, he may need Theodore to agree to a team not covered in his trade list (modified no trade clause). Tallon doesn't have the finances to bury the contract in the minors nor does he want to waive Theodore and lose him for absolutely nothing. They are also not completely sold on markstrom at this point and feel he needs significantly more seasoning to be a starter in the NHL.

Tallon is trying to build something and they took a great first step this past season. But in order to take that second step he needs to fend off what will likely be a better focused Caps team, a better Canes team and perhaps a better Lightening team. He may be happy Theodore had a nice season last year but you better believe he is very well aware of the inconsistency with Theodore throughout his career and worries about that compromising the ability to take a further step forward.

To be honest I'm not convinced the sticking point in a Panthers-Canuck deal has much to do with Bjugstad or other good prospect but more to do with Tallon needing to move Theodore so he doesn't end up with 3 NHL goaltenders in camp with one of them unhappy he's not a starter or at least a 1A/1B type of guy.

tantalum is online now  
Old
08-01-2012, 11:16 AM
  #89
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
No kidding, GMs value prospects. No revelation there. But in what sensible world is a prospect worth an elite NHL player right now? Did Erixon not just get traded in a package for Nash? Teams know when they deal assets like Lu, they are taking on the lesser return, not the other way around. A prospect =/= NHL player.


Bjugstad is not an NHL player. The pros get their flaws picked apart. Have to endure teams scouting their weaknesses. Have to constantly adjust. NB is a dream right now. He's the perfect, realized version of himself that fans are holding onto, and it skews values to a ridiculous degree... Soft as butter... skating issues... but no one says anything about that. Curious no? Hell, I'm sure Shawn Matthias was thought of as a future PF C hall of famer at one point. The NHL has a way of knocking expectations down. Bjugstad has yet to feel that, truly. Potential is a great thing.
It really is fascinating, the allure of a top prospect and the projection of said prospect is so easy to exceed that of a current NHL player with well documented flaws that it can become lopsided. But you don't know if it's lopsided until the league can see what said prospect actually brings to the table. This valuing of assets is pretty subjective since you can't really quantify projections in any reliable way. Teams pay steep prices to move up in drafts for players that sometimes don't ever make their club, likewise prospects and picks get moved for aging assets and outperform them in the medium term.

Canuck fans do the same thing, thinking back to the Hodgson threads with all the proposals for him and watching us declare said player untouchable. Same thing would probably happen when other teams propose deals for Kassian today.

lush is online now  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:11 PM
  #90
MrCanuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 14
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
Why would anyone in their right mind deal Luongo to Chicago for Dave Bolland? The guy is a 3rd liner who makes $3M+, has said idiotic things in the media, and is only signed for 2 more years, one of which may well be lost to a lockout.

Add to that the fact that a conference rival is drastically improved by the deal. If Gillis deals Lu to Chicago it has to be for one of Hossa, Kane, or Sharp. Otherwise send him out east.
Agreed. We might get one year out of Bolland and for that we face Luongo in the playoffs for the last couple of years that our core is in its prime? Doesn't make sense.

MrCanuck is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:14 PM
  #91
MrCanuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 14
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
It's easier to find 3rd liners and 3rd pairing dmen then it is to find star players. If we deal Luongo to Chicago without getting a star player back, then Chicago will find a way to fill out their depth, and then they will be a team full of stars, with depth, and with a star goalie. It would not be a good thing.

Not to mention if we give up a star goalie for a third liner we lose the trade big time, imo, regardless of the fact that it's Chicago.
What he said!

MrCanuck is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:20 PM
  #92
MrCanuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 14
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
We make the best trade that we can. If it makes us better and them better oh well, its not like the odds of us meeting in the playoffs are even all that good.
Huh? Haven't we met them in the playoffs for two of the last three years? How have those odds made future meetings highly unlikely???

MrCanuck is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:25 PM
  #93
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,853
vCash: 500
Agreed on all fronts about dealing Luongo to Chicago and not getting a legit star player back, doesn't make sense to send an all star goalie (their missing piece) to a huge rival when you're getting a 3rd pairing defenseman and a 3rd line center back (who really has only excelled when playing against the Sedins)

Do not want.

struckmatch is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:28 PM
  #94
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,196
vCash: 500
Chicago beat us and won the cup because Lu soiled himself and Bolland ran our show and now we won't trade Lu for Bolland? Interesting turn of events.

Scurr is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:30 PM
  #95
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Doesn't matter if it is the new ownership or the old, if the Leafs miss the playoffs Burke is gone at the end of the year.

He knows this and he also knows the reason they missed the playoffs last year was mainly because of goaltending. The question is can he fix that goaltending? As a GM that is easily his biggest weakness. But in Luongo he has about as much of a sure thing as you can possibly get so I expect he will improve his offers to a point that they are attractive enough. Whether they are good enough to beat other offers I don't know given I don't think the Leafs have much to offer to the canucks.

On the Panthers...Tallon was NOT happy with his goaltending in the first round. It was, I believe, both Pierre LeBrun and Pierre MacGuire that mentioned coming out of that series that the Panthers felt goaltending did cost them. That is the last memory Tallon has of Theodore. He wants an upgrade to the goaltending but to do so means he has to move Theodore. In order to move Theodore, he may need Theodore to agree to a team not covered in his trade list (modified no trade clause). Tallon doesn't have the finances to bury the contract in the minors nor does he want to waive Theodore and lose him for absolutely nothing. They are also not completely sold on markstrom at this point and feel he needs significantly more seasoning to be a starter in the NHL.

Tallon is trying to build something and they took a great first step this past season. But in order to take that second step he needs to fend off what will likely be a better focused Caps team, a better Canes team and perhaps a better Lightening team. He may be happy Theodore had a nice season last year but you better believe he is very well aware of the inconsistency with Theodore throughout his career and worries about that compromising the ability to take a further step forward.

To be honest I'm not convinced the sticking point in a Panthers-Canuck deal has much to do with Bjugstad or other good prospect but more to do with Tallon needing to move Theodore so he doesn't end up with 3 NHL goaltenders in camp with one of them unhappy he's not a starter or at least a 1A/1B type of guy.
It very well could be Theodore. There was a rumour about him not wanting to waive his NTC for VAN. Seems plausible. I think salary could also be a big factor. Maybe the Panthers also want to send Upshall along, which affects VAN's cap structure...

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:32 PM
  #96
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Chicago beat us and won the cup because Lu soiled himself and Bolland ran our show and now we won't trade Lu for Bolland? Interesting turn of events.
Bolland just had about the quietest playoff series ever...3 assists in 6 games, while not being able to keep the Coyotes off the score board.

I remember Patrick Kane running the show against us, he's the guy I want if dealing with Chicago.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 01:11 PM
  #97
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Chicago beat us and won the cup because Lu soiled himself and Bolland ran our show and now we won't trade Lu for Bolland? Interesting turn of events.
So we should start making trades based on one series 3 years ago?

Canucker is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 01:23 PM
  #98
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
So we should start making trades based on one series 3 years ago?
One series three years ago or three series, three years in a row?

Scurr is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 01:30 PM
  #99
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
One series three years ago or three series, three years in a row?
I suppose his track record against the canucks (where is that passittobulis article dispelling this myth when you need it ) didn't matter to Gillis as he already passed on Bolland... ?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 01:31 PM
  #100
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
One series three years ago or three series, three years in a row?
Put him out against the Sedins and he's great...other than that he just another good 3rd liner. I think he gets overrated because of what he did against us.

Canucker is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.