HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Luongo Thread - Waiting on the World to Change (Mod Warning in OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-07-2012, 09:56 AM
  #976
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Luongo is not going to return what the Canucks need to overcome their playoff troubles. The Canucks lost to the Bruins and the Kings, because the Canucks top goal scorers do not play tough, and their goals dried up. Who on Toronto could help with this circumstance? Who on Edmonton? Florida? The Canucks need a tough foward who can play in the top six (Kassian??) They also need a really tough d-man who can play 25 to 30 minutes. Could Luongo return Phaneuf? Would Toronto consider such a trade? Consequently, Luongo's return will be extra parts.
No. We traded Schenn, can't move any more D.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:01 AM
  #977
Nick the Viking
Registered User
 
Nick the Viking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Republic of Colwood
Country: Canada
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Luongo is not going to return what the Canucks need to overcome their playoff troubles. The Canucks lost to the Bruins and the Kings, because the Canucks top goal scorers do not play tough, and their goals dried up. Who on Toronto could help with this circumstance? Who on Edmonton? Florida? The Canucks need a tough foward who can play in the top six (Kassian??) They also need a really tough d-man who can play 25 to 30 minutes. Could Luongo return Phaneuf? Would Toronto consider such a trade? Consequently, Luongo's return will be extra parts.
Ah yes, their playoff troubles.

They've lost to the eventual Cup champs 3 years running; sure the series against LA last year they didn't show up the well in the first two games, at least, but Quick played out of his mind and we were missing our best sniper.

I agree though, the Canucks need a gritty top6 player, but those are hard to come by and with the teams that are rumored to be int he running we may not even have the option of getting a player like that. I do believe we need to hold onto him until we can get an impact player - one that fits in a top 6/9 role - in the package for Lu.

Nick the Viking is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:02 AM
  #978
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,488
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Ummm....that team had both Sedins, Markus Naslund, Trevor Linden,Ryan Kesler,Bieksa,Edler,Morrison....Hell, Pyatt scored 23 that year. You finished #1 overall with 105 points...sucky team?? Am i missing a joke?
Ignorance is bliss. This further shows your lack of knowledge of our team which begs the question: why do you think you know so much about Luongo, the Canucks and circumstances which have led us to this situation?

The Canucks goal is to get tougher, but if the choice is between a non tough top 6 forward, and a slew of crap that the Leafs and Leaf fans are talking about, I take Hemsky very easily.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:04 AM
  #979
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,488
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Boy View Post
Ah yes, their playoff troubles.

They've lost to the eventual Cup champs 3 years running; sure the series against LA last year they didn't show up the well in the first two games, at least, but Quick played out of his mind and we were missing our best sniper.

I agree though, the Canucks need a gritty top6 player, but those are hard to come by and with the teams that are rumored to be int he running we may not even have the option of getting a player like that. I do believe we need to hold onto him until we can get an impact player - one that fits in a top 6/9 role - in the package for Lu.
Another middle 6 winger does us no good. Our forward group has proven time and time again it isn't good enough when it comes to the playoffs. We need a clear top 6 forward.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:09 AM
  #980
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Ignorance is bliss. This further shows your lack of knowledge of our team which begs the question: why do you think you know so much about Luongo, the Canucks and circumstances which have led us to this situation?

The Canucks goal is to get tougher, but if the choice is between a non tough top 6 forward, and a slew of crap that the Leafs and Leaf fans are talking about, I take Hemsky very easily.
WTF? Was i wrong? You said "see 2006-2007 team. I pulled it from the Hockey Refernce.com site and it didn't look as "sucky" as you said. I'll admit i haven't watched every Canucks game and i didn't say i had any knowledge whatsoever about the Canuck's "situation". So, let me be clear, you would take Hemsky over Kadri or Colborne/Connolly and a 1st?
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2007.html

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:11 AM
  #981
Oilin Toronto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Ignorance is bliss. This further shows your lack of knowledge of our team which begs the question: why do you think you know so much about Luongo, the Canucks and circumstances which have led us to this situation?

The Canucks goal is to get tougher, but if the choice is between a non tough top 6 forward, and a slew of crap that the Leafs and Leaf fans are talking about, I take Hemsky very easily.
Anybody with any common sense would take that, but Edmonton isn't giving Hemsky away for Luongo. If you want Hemsky or Gagner, it'll cost you Kassian!!!

Once Kassian is offered, we will think about taking Luongo, and his albatross of a contract on.

Oilin Toronto is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:13 AM
  #982
Oilin Toronto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
WTF? Was i wrong? You said "see 2006-2007 team. I pulled it from the Nucks site and it didn't look as "sucky" as you said. I'll admit i haven't watched every Canucks game and i didn't say i had any knowledge whatsoever about the Canuck's "situation". So, let me be clear, you would take Hemsky over Kadri or Colborne/Connolly and a 1st?
As good as Hemsky is, I would take this.

Oilin Toronto is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:17 AM
  #983
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
WTF? Was i wrong? You said "see 2006-2007 team. I pulled it from the Hockey Refernce.com site and it didn't look as "sucky" as you said. I'll admit i haven't watched every Canucks game and i didn't say i had any knowledge whatsoever about the Canuck's "situation". So, let me be clear, you would take Hemsky over Kadri or Colborne/Connolly and a 1st?
The Canucks do not need any of those players. Gillis using the Luongo chip to acquire more soft players makes no sense. Many Canucks' fans will most likely be openly disappointed with the return for Luongo, but in time they will realize the toughness that came in return made the current players more effective.

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:18 AM
  #984
Oilin Toronto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
The Canucks do not need any of those players. Gillis using the Luongo chip to acquire more soft players makes no sense. Many Canucks' fans will most likely be openly disappointed with the return for Luongo, but in time they will realize the toughness that came in return made the current players more effective.

Oilin Toronto is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:25 AM
  #985
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
No. We traded Schenn, can't move any more D.
That is my point. If Gillis was wise (and I do believe he is) then he will use the Luongo chip to get a d-man like Phaneuf. If this requires adding to Luongo to 'sweeten' the pot, he will. I do see a trade where Luongo goes to the Leafs and Phaneuf goes to Vancouver. This makes both teams better. Or, he will use the assets acquired through the Luongo trade to get that piece at a later date.

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:27 AM
  #986
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,488
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
WTF? Was i wrong? You said "see 2006-2007 team. I pulled it from the Hockey Refernce.com site and it didn't look as "sucky" as you said. I'll admit i haven't watched every Canucks game and i didn't say i had any knowledge whatsoever about the Canuck's "situation". So, let me be clear, you would take Hemsky over Kadri or Colborne/Connolly and a 1st?
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2007.html
Yes you are wrong.

Firstly, we didn't finish first overall

The Sedins were just coming into their own and weren't dominant in the regular season. They were good, but weren't viewed as the players they are today.

Linden was a 4th liner. Naslund was a shell of his former self and was more of a detriment to his line than an asset. Morrison wasn't much of an impact player. Edler was a rookie who hardly played. Kesler was a mere third liner. Pyatt was a plug who produced because its hard not to when given first line minutes with the Sedins even before they became elite. This was Bieksa's first full season, and although it was good, the team offensively was lousy.

Luongo carried that team.

And yes. I take Hemsky over Kadri, Colborne, mid 1st.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:31 AM
  #987
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
That is my point. If Gillis was wise (and I do believe he is) then he will use the Luongo chip to get a d-man like Phaneuf. If this requires adding to Luongo to 'sweeten' the pot, he will. I do see a trade where Luongo goes to the Leafs and Phaneuf goes to Vancouver. This makes both teams better. Or, he will use the assets acquired through the Luongo trade to get that piece at a later date.
Phaneuf/Gunner
Liles/Gards
Franson? (unsigned)/Komi/Holzer?(possible rookie callup)

What could Gillis add that makes Phaneuf (our captain no less) available

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:34 AM
  #988
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,488
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Phaneuf/Gunner
Liles/Gards
Franson? (unsigned)/Komi/Holzer?(possible rookie callup)

What could Gillis add that makes Phaneuf (our captain no less) available
Keith Ballard

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:34 AM
  #989
Oilin Toronto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Yes you are wrong.

Firstly, we didn't finish first overall

The Sedins were just coming into their own and weren't dominant in the regular season. They were good, but weren't viewed as the players they are today.

Linden was a 4th liner. Naslund was a shell of his former self and was more of a detriment to his line than an asset. Morrison wasn't much of an impact player. Edler was a rookie who hardly played. Kesler was a mere third liner. Pyatt was a plug who produced because its hard not to when given first line minutes with the Sedins even before they became elite. This was Bieksa's first full season, and although it was good, the team offensively was lousy.

Luongo carried that team.

And yes. I take Hemsky over Kadri, Colborne, mid 1st.
It was always a 1st...mid 1st was never discussed. Why are you changing things on the fly.

Chances of Toronto finishing outside of the top 10 in the draft is highly unlikely, given the fact that they haven't made enough significant changes in the offseason that would suggest them moving up over 10 teams. Therefore, the original offer of a 1st would be anywhere from 1st - 10th overall.

As an Oiler (hemsky) fan, and looking at who I could get in the top 10 of the last couple of drafts, I would take the chance, and take the 1st rounder, and a couple of the spare parts in Kadri and Colborne.

Oilin Toronto is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:38 AM
  #990
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Yes you are wrong.

Firstly, we didn't finish first overall

The Sedins were just coming into their own and weren't dominant in the regular season. They were good, but weren't viewed as the players they are today.

Linden was a 4th liner. Naslund was a shell of his former self and was more of a detriment to his line than an asset. Morrison wasn't much of an impact player. Edler was a rookie who hardly played. Kesler was a mere third liner. Pyatt was a plug who produced because its hard not to when given first line minutes with the Sedins even before they became elite. This was Bieksa's first full season, and although it was good, the team offensively was lousy.

Luongo carried that team.

And yes. I take Hemsky over Kadri, Colborne, mid 1st.
You are correct, i read the underlined first in NHL and missed Northeast. My mistake and i apologise. I still don't think it's fair to say that the team was "sucky" as it contained the young peices that are now your core. That is like saying the Oilers are "sucky".

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:39 AM
  #991
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Keith Ballard
A big no thanks.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 11:12 AM
  #992
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,488
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilin Toronto View Post
It was always a 1st...mid 1st was never discussed. Why are you changing things on the fly.

Chances of Toronto finishing outside of the top 10 in the draft is highly unlikely, given the fact that they haven't made enough significant changes in the offseason that would suggest them moving up over 10 teams. Therefore, the original offer of a 1st would be anywhere from 1st - 10th overall.

As an Oiler (hemsky) fan, and looking at who I could get in the top 10 of the last couple of drafts, I would take the chance, and take the 1st rounder, and a couple of the spare parts in Kadri and Colborne.
Maybe because Luongo on the Leafs improves them enough to take them to the playoffs? You're seriously underestimating how impactful a top 5 goalie can be.

Go ahead and take the spare parts. I wouldn't and I certainly hope Gillis doesn't.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 11:16 AM
  #993
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,586
vCash: 500
Approaching 1,000. New thread opened.

Shutting this down.

Mr. Canucklehead is online now  
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 02:19 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.