HFBoards

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

Luongo Thread: Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (Mod Warning in OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-08-2012, 05:32 AM
  #126
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
So yeah, Frattin is a name that's been thrown around... I thought this might be a good article to share:


http://theleafsnation.com/2012/11/1/...lacement-level


Edit: Direct quote from article
Quote:
If anybody wants to make a legitimate bet, however, that Frattin will play top-nine forward minutes (all strengths) on an NHL team that makes it to the conference finals, my e-mail address is below.








There's also Cam's thoughts on a few things Canucks related, including the analysis of potential Leafs players coming back for Luongo.


http://canucksarmy.com/2012/11/7/the...th-cam-charron


--> He has _mixed_ feelings on Gardiner as well... Plus possession player on a bad team by sheltered.


Edit: Cam also feels, like I do, that the Canucks gave up on MAG too soon. Further, he thinks 4 out of the next 5 seasons for Luongo will be "elite", before he declines.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 11-08-2012 at 05:56 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 08:35 AM
  #127
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
In addition to your points:

Sedins
- slightly declining, but will not decline like other superstars because of playing style
- good for 75-85 points next year

Bolland
- will make us a much better team
- thinks Sedins will look past Bollands comments
- trade kills Hawks C depth

Gardiner
- stepped into great situation in TO (sheltered)
- still risky because he may not amount to a top pairing d-man, Gillis can take chance on him
- can be sheltered in VAN

Frattin
- overrated due to rookie season, throw in player
- goalscorers prime is around 23ish (hes 24)

Bozak
- he's terrible
- overinflated ego due to playing as #1C in O6 team
- terrible possesion #s without Kessel (he's their Anson Carter)

Colborne
- good around the net
- big guy but plays a finesse game
- thinks he will be a very good #2C one day
- might have lower value in TO because of playing injured all year

Kesler
- ego makes him play like superstar because of 40 goal season

Higgins
- perfect hockey player

Thinks Luongo should be traded for a forward and run 2 #2 Lines (Kesler + 3rd line)

Agreements in bold.

kthsn is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 09:18 AM
  #128
Nuck This
Registered User
 
Nuck This's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,003
vCash: 500
Did you just say a goal scorers prime is 23......?

Nuck This is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 09:23 AM
  #129
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,922
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
Did you just say a goal scorers prime is 23......?
Yeah, I think that only applies to highly drafted superstars.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 09:31 AM
  #130
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
Did you just say a goal scorers prime is 23......?
Historically, snipers goalscoring output peaks before the age of 25.

Playmakers on the other hand show better longevity.

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 09:36 AM
  #131
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
Did you just say a goal scorers prime is 23......?
Sorry, I was referring to peak not prime years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Historically, snipers goalscoring output peaks before the age of 25.

Playmakers on the other hand show better longevity.
Yup, a brilliant example is Ovechkin who's peak appears to be over but remains a good player.

kthsn is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 09:37 AM
  #132
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
In addition to your points:


Agreements in bold.
It amazes me how Canucks' fans see 'their' team needing another top six forward, but neglect the need for a #1 defense-man. Most of the other 29 teams' fans would recognize the Canucks biggest need is on DEFENSE. Much like the Leafs' biggest need is in goal. Every team has more than one need, that's for certain. We would expect MG would put more weight on the need for the #1 d.

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 09:43 AM
  #133
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
It amazes me how Canucks' fans see 'their' team needing another top six forward, but neglect the need for a #1 defense-man. Most of the other 29 teams' fans would recognize the Canucks biggest need is on DEFENSE. Much like the Leafs' biggest need is in goal. Every team has more than one need, that's for certain. We would expect MG would put more weight on the need for the #1 d.
I disagree. The Canucks need secondary scoring, Hamhuis and Edler are adequate for anchoring our defense.

Either way this is about a Luongo trade, if it's a "true" #1 dman we're looking for the Leafs are of no help.

Phaneuf would only be good enough to be our #3 but fortunately the Leafs can offer secondary scoring.

kthsn is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 09:58 AM
  #134
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
I disagree. The Canucks need secondary scoring, Hamhuis and Edler are adequate for anchoring our defense.

Either way this is about a Luongo trade, if it's a "true" #1 dman we're looking for the Leafs are of no help.

Phaneuf would only be good enough to be our #3 but fortunately the Leafs can offer secondary scoring.
The Canucks are not getting Phaneuf for Luongo unless it's Luongo + +. Regardless, the Canucks already have top end talent in the first two forward lines. (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows) They don't have equal talent on defense. (Not one of the current d has ever been even in the discussion for a Norris.) Hence, the Canucks more pressing need is on defense. And if the Canucks could get Phaneuf, he would be in the top pair, playing the right side. Absolutely.

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 10:07 AM
  #135
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
So yeah, Frattin is a name that's been thrown around... I thought this might be a good article to share:


http://theleafsnation.com/2012/11/1/...lacement-level


Edit: Direct quote from article
Frattin won't be on the first three lines because, you know, there are lots of good players around

Does this guy have a good reputation?

He compares Frattin to Mike Brown. Frattin had 8 goals in 56 game this season, Mike Brown has 14 in 242 career games.

Players like Frattin make it on the top three lines because because teams like a physical element there to go along with skill. The Vancouver Canucks have made the conference finals twice in their history, the Leafs haven't made it since '94. Suckers bet.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-08-2012 at 11:02 AM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 10:09 AM
  #136
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Regardless, the Canucks already have top end talent in the first two forward lines. (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows) They don't have equal talent on defense. (Not one of the current d has ever been even in the discussion for a Norris.) Hence, the Canucks more pressing need is on defense.
The Canucks lack a franchise d-man but Gillis has built a d-core with tremendous depth.

Our current top 6 still lacks a winger for Kesler's line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
And if the Canucks could get Phaneuf, he would be in the top pair, playing the right side. Absolutely.
And he would still be the third best d-man.

kthsn is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 10:16 AM
  #137
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
 
Back in 94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
The Canucks are not getting Phaneuf for Luongo unless it's Luongo + +. Regardless, the Canucks already have top end talent in the first two forward lines. (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows) They don't have equal talent on defense. (Not one of the current d has ever been even in the discussion for a Norris.) Hence, the Canucks more pressing need is on defense. And if the Canucks could get Phaneuf, he would be in the top pair, playing the right side. Absolutely.
Our biggest need is a RWer to play on the second line. Our defense is fine. If Vancouver was looking for an upgrade on D Phaneuf wouldn't be that player as he is not a true number 1.

Back in 94 is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 10:22 AM
  #138
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
The Canucks lack a franchise d-man but Gillis has built a d-core with tremendous depth.

Our current top 6 still lacks a winger for Kesler's line.


And he would still be the third best d-man.
I hear what you're saying, and I agree that the Canucks could use a 'Milan Lucic' type player in their top six forwards. (Perhaps MG feels he has already filled that role with Kassian?) However, Phaneuf has a skill-set that no defense-man on the current Canucks has. He's big, fast, mobile, has a heavy shot, and he's mean, and he's tough. This makes him the #1 on the Canucks. Perhaps MG is pursuing him, in order to fill that need?

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 10:36 AM
  #139
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
However, Phaneuf has a skill-set that no defense-man on the current Canucks has. He's big, fast, mobile, has a heavy shot, and he's mean, and he's tough. This makes him the #1 on the Canucks. Perhaps MG is pursuing him, in order to fill that need?
If you're trying to argue that Phaneuf is better than Edler and Hamhuis I'll stop wasting our time.

kthsn is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:22 AM
  #140
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,922
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
I hear what you're saying, and I agree that the Canucks could use a 'Milan Lucic' type player in their top six forwards. (Perhaps MG feels he has already filled that role with Kassian?) However, Phaneuf has a skill-set that no defense-man on the current Canucks has. He's big, fast, mobile, has a heavy shot, and he's mean, and he's tough. This makes him the #1 on the Canucks. Perhaps MG is pursuing him, in order to fill that need?
I would trade Luongo for Phaneuf straight up, with intent to flip Edler for some forward help, but it's extremely unlikely they trade their captain. Phaneuf does add some more dynamism to our defense that Hamhuis lacks and Edler is inconsistent with, but he is still almost guaranteed not to be coming our way.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:50 AM
  #141
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
It amazes me how Canucks' fans see 'their' team needing another top six forward, but neglect the need for a #1 defense-man. Most of the other 29 teams' fans would recognize the Canucks biggest need is on DEFENSE. Much like the Leafs' biggest need is in goal. Every team has more than one need, that's for certain. We would expect MG would put more weight on the need for the #1 d.
I really don't understand this point of view.

The Canucks failures in the playoffs has been due to a lack of scoring. We have averaged 16 goals in our last 10 playoff games (two series). That tells me, along with our poor offensive numbers throughout the entire 2011 playoffs, that our problem is on offense.

On defense we have Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler, Garrison set in our top 4. Who do you think should be displaced from that group? We also have Ballard and Tanev on our bottom pairing which is much better than most bottom pairings in the league. Ballard may be cut due to cap reasons if there is an amnesty buy-out period, but that would just open the door for Kevin Connauton who has looked very good in the AHL as Tanev's partner.

Sure we could use a franchise defenseman, but our greatest need quite clearly is up front.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:53 AM
  #142
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I would trade Luongo for Phaneuf straight up, with intent to flip Edler for some forward help, but it's extremely unlikely they trade their captain. Phaneuf does add some more dynamism to our defense that Hamhuis lacks and Edler is inconsistent with, but he is still almost guaranteed not to be coming our way.
This isn't a bad scenario. Our defense parings could be:

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Garrison-Phaneuf
Connauton-Tanev

assuming Ballard is bought out if there's an amnesty buy-out period. Looks very very good to me. Although I do agree that it's highly highly unlikely the Leafs move their captain.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:56 AM
  #143
Toxic0n
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 646
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
I hear what you're saying, and I agree that the Canucks could use a 'Milan Lucic' type player in their top six forwards. (Perhaps MG feels he has already filled that role with Kassian?) However, Phaneuf has a skill-set that no defense-man on the current Canucks has. He's big, fast, mobile, has a heavy shot, and he's mean, and he's tough. This makes him the #1 on the Canucks. Perhaps MG is pursuing him, in order to fill that need?
Fast? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Toxic0n is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:58 AM
  #144
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,983
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
It amazes me how Canucks' fans see 'their' team needing another top six forward, but neglect the need for a #1 defense-man. Most of the other 29 teams' fans would recognize the Canucks biggest need is on DEFENSE. Much like the Leafs' biggest need is in goal. Every team has more than one need, that's for certain. We would expect MG would put more weight on the need for the #1 d.
Did you watch the Canucks last season?
Didn't you get frustrated from the lack of scoring? When Hodgson was traded for someone who would play the season on the 4th line, the team suffered.

Henrik, Daniel, Burrows and Kesler were pretty much the only guys playing like consistent top 6 forwards. Booth and Higgins had flashes of brilliance during the season, but they weren't consistent enough to be top 6 forwards. And Raymond hasn't played like a top 6 forward since 09-10.

Our defense is very good. We don't NEED a #1 d-man. In fact, I think we already have one in Edler, but you want a norris calibre defenseman which just isn't possible to acquire at this time.

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 12:35 PM
  #145
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 9,985
vCash: 250
Agreed, would much rather acquire a scoring centre to anchor the 3rd line instead of another D-man.

vanuck is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 12:44 PM
  #146
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic0n View Post
Fast? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Your argument for him not being fast is that he couldn't quite keep up (and it was damn close considering he also had to turn whereas Hansen kept going in a straight line) with Hansen who is much smaller and one of the fastest skaters on our team? Phaneuf is a great skater, especially when you consider his height and weight.

Don't really care that we don't need Phaneuf — if the option was actually there to acquire him, you absolutely do it. It would be one of the biggest returns the Canucks could possibly get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Agreed, would much rather acquire a scoring centre to anchor the 3rd line instead of another D-man.
And then you end up like Calgary, giving up a prime asset (Phaneuf, or in our case Luongo) for a bunch of pieces that are all worthless on their own. They also thought they would be better off with someone to anchor their 3rd line — Matt Stajan.

Tiranis is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 12:53 PM
  #147
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Your argument for him not being fast is that he couldn't quite keep up (and it was damn close considering he also had to turn whereas Hansen kept going in a straight line) with Hansen who is much smaller and one of the fastest skaters on our team? Phaneuf is a great skater, especially when you consider his height and weight.

Don't really care that we don't need Phaneuf — if the option was actually there to acquire him, you absolutely do it. It would be one of the biggest returns the Canucks could possibly get.



And then you end up like Calgary, giving up a prime asset (Phaneuf, or in our case Luongo) for a bunch of pieces that are all worthless on their own. They also thought they would be better off with someone to anchor their 3rd line — Matt Stajan.
Ugh, good point. This is exactly what Calgary did, and should be a good lesson for anyone thinking it's a good idea to trade Luongo for a pile of 2nd and 3rd liners (Kulemin, Lombardi, Connely, Bozak.) 1st rounder/bluechip/quality NHLer. Any 2 of the 3 or nothing at all.

B-rock is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 12:59 PM
  #148
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
@strombone1
Some people say 4 more years of Obama. I look at it more like 4 more years of disgruntled goalie politically charged Facebook rants! #I❤TT
His comedic ability alone deserves a 1st rounder.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 01:27 PM
  #149
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
I hear what you're saying, and I agree that the Canucks could use a 'Milan Lucic' type player in their top six forwards. (Perhaps MG feels he has already filled that role with Kassian?) However, Phaneuf has a skill-set that no defense-man on the current Canucks has. He's big, fast, mobile, has a heavy shot, and he's mean, and he's tough. This makes him the #1 on the Canucks. Perhaps MG is pursuing him, in order to fill that need?
Have you watched the Dion play?


Phaneuf is an abysmal defenseman and there is absolutely no way Gillis is pursuing him.

This is a very ill informed post.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 01:32 PM
  #150
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Our current top 6 still lacks a winger for Kesler's line.
Let's play pretend here for a minute and assume Getzlaf and Perry are of equal value at their respective positions (I think so anyways)...would you rather:

Option 1
Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Booth - Kesler - Perry
Higgins - Lappy/Schroder - Hansen
Wiese/Maholtra - Malholtra/Lappy - Kassian

or

Option 2
Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Booth - Getzlaf - Kassian
Higgins - Kesler - Hansen
Raymond - Lappy - Weise/Maholtra

?

I think we need another centre more than we need another winger. Especially if we continue to play Kesler on the #1 PP unit.

DJOpus 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 02:36 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.