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

The Luongo Thread: Another Brick in the Wall Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 05:18 PM
  #901
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
Actually, I'd say overpaying for Lu giving the current situation would be idiotic. We NEED to move one of them, Toronto doesn't NEED to get Luongo.

As Y2K mentioned, VAN doesn't need to send Luongo to TO. If anything, FLA will still be pushed as a destination by Lu's camp.


Also, the question becomes: What is an overpayment/underpayment? Subjective analysis will persist here.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:21 PM
  #902
Vancouver_2010
Go Canucks & Oilers
 
Vancouver_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,495
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
Actually, I'd say overpaying for Lu giving the current situation would be idiotic. We NEED to move one of them, Toronto doesn't NEED to get Luongo.
Nope, we do not have to trade Luongo at all, he is just fine playing with Schneider.

It's better for us to keep both goalies in a short season anyways, it give us an opportunity to give Luongo more rest for the post-season.

Vancouver_2010 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:28 PM
  #903
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
Actually, I'd say overpaying for Lu giving the current situation would be idiotic. We NEED to move one of them, Toronto doesn't NEED to get Luongo.
This is refreshing.

marty111 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:34 PM
  #904
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
This is refreshing.


It's also inaccurate.



If Gillis felt this need, Luongo would have been dealt at the draft to TO. Clearly, that didn't happen.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:42 PM
  #905
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
It's also inaccurate.



If Gillis felt this need, Luongo would have been dealt at the draft to TO. Clearly, that didn't happen.


That's not what he said. He said Vancouver needs to move one of their goalies and Toronto doesn't need to get Luongo.

For some reason you think that means, "Luongo has to be traded to Toronto"?

marty111 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:43 PM
  #906
PRNuck
Retain Kevin Lowe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,170
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
It's also inaccurate.



If Gillis felt this need, Luongo would have been dealt at the draft to TO. Clearly, that didn't happen.
Hey remember samjam?

PRNuck is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:47 PM
  #907
StrictlyCommercial
Registered User
 
StrictlyCommercial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,670
vCash: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRNuck View Post
Hey remember samjam?
Never Forget.

StrictlyCommercial is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:50 PM
  #908
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post


That's not what he said. He said Vancouver needs to move one of their goalies and Toronto doesn't need to get Luongo.

For some reason you think that means, "Luongo has to be traded to Toronto"?


Read my post further up this page - I said Luongo _does_not_ need to be traded to TO. That's my whole point. I'm not sure why it's being pushed that he has to go to TOR at all? He doesn't need to be dealt there. VAN can move their goalie to FLA, CHI, EDM, CBJ or wherever else they deem fit.


Given this fact, there is no pressure on Gillis to send him there. Do you understand?



Edit: Also, CC's quote confuses need with want. The Canucks don't need to deal Luongo. They are under the cap and have both goalies signed. They _want_ to move Luongo to accommodate his request, but they don't need to do it. There is a difference.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:54 PM
  #909
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Read my post further up this page - I said Luongo _does_not_ need to be traded to TO. That's my whole point. I'm not sure why it's being pushed that he has to go to TOR at all? He doesn't need to be dealt there. VAN can move their goalie to FLA, CHI, EDM, CBJ or wherever else they deem fit.


Given this fact, there is no pressure on Gillis to send him there. Do you understand?



Edit: Also, CC's quote confuses need with want. The Canucks don't need to deal Luongo. They are under the cap and have both goalies signed. They _want_ to move Luongo to accommodate his request, but they don't need to do it. There is a difference.
I understand your point, but you still didn't grasp the other guys very well. He didn't say that at all.

marty111 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 06:03 PM
  #910
KeninsFan
"Unintentional" Tank
 
KeninsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,454
vCash: 50
I don't think there will ever be a situation where Gillis will NEED to move Luongo. He's too much of a team player to be a distraction in the locker room, worst case scenario he gets frustrated and outduels Schneider for the #1 spot and we have a great trading chip (again).

KeninsFan is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 06:04 PM
  #911
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
I understand your point, but you still didn't grasp the other guys very well. He didn't say that at all.


Oh I got it just fine. He's just not right in saying it, which is why others have commented on it as well.


He made an inference within his point.


- VAN needs to move Lu - Inaccurate.


- TO doesn't need a goalie - Also inaccurate.


The inference is that TO doesn't have to pay a high price for Luongo because they don't have an apparent need and VAN needs to move Lu. So you tell me, if both above statements are inaccurate, how can the inference be accurate?



I think I understand him just fine. I think you didn't like the contrary opinion because it doesn't fit your MO. It's not "refreshing" to you.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 06:12 PM
  #912
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Oh I got it just fine. He's just not right in saying it, which is why others have commented on it as well.

He made an inference within his point.
- VAN needs to move Lu - Inaccurate.
- TO doesn't need a goalie - Also inaccurate.

The inference is that TO doesn't have to pay a high price for Luongo because they don't have an apparent need and VAN needs to move Lu. So you tell me, if both above statements are inaccurate, how can the inference be accurate?

I think I understand him just fine. I think you didn't like the contrary opinion because it doesn't fit your MO. It's not "refreshing" to you.
Oh I see you are you interpreting what he said to mean something else. We could be here all night then

To the bold: Debateable and no he said the Leafs don't need Luongo. Not a goalie.

To the rest... meh.

marty111 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 06:28 PM
  #913
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,596
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Which is funny since he accomplished more than most goalies will in their career. Schneider is being labeled the next best thing after less than one season's worth of work... so it's hardly a strong argument.

Heck, if the argument is going to be, "what have you done lately, the past doesn't matter" - to guys like Ward, Price, etc. than why do we always hear about Luongo's pedigree over his career and not last years numbers?
because Luongo has both historical results and the recent results. It's very hard for anyone to compete with those.

Quote:
Why do many Canuck fans reject Lupul as a very valuable piece because maybe he had a good season?
because he's older and lacks historical results. if he was a first or 2nd year youngster people would be hyping the crap out of him. If you can show him being a top 10 winger for the last 10 years to go with his recent form, he'll get more love.

Quote:
See these are the type of comments that really make the "Luongo is an Elite Top 5 goalie" fall apart.
No they don't.

Ward hasn't outperformed Luongo in any year, his past results are nice but not spectacular. Ward figuring in this argument relies on a SC run from what 7 seasons ago or the argument busts. $6.3m vs Schneider's $4m

Miller - Luongo better recently and better historically. One hyped up year where he lost Olympic gold to Luongo. $6.25m vs Schneider's $4m.

Price has youth on his side, he's the youngest of the top 5 contenders, but has not shown himself to be better than Schneider or Luongo based on recent of past results.

That leaves

Lundqvist: excellent recent results and a good history. safe pick as top 5

Quick: lacks historical results but his recent results were great and finished with great SC record. safe top 5 pick, at least as long as stays behind that LA defense.

Rinne: solid history while his recent results are top notch. safe top 5.

Quote:
I know I'm kind of generalizing a bunch of opinions here but I think it's obvious that unanimously people think Lu is a Top5 and Schneider is better than Lu.

It's a huge contradiction since one argument supports a whole career and the other is because of 60 games of work. Don't you see how that a contradiction when there are A LOT of other good goalies who fit one of those arguments?
There is no contradiction, they are simply being judges using different weighting criteria. Schneider played a smidge better recently, is cheaper but far more riskier due lack of history at NHL level. OTOH Luongo is still playing excellently and is far more proven. An argument can be made for both. If we look at the last 2 years as recent and the rest as historical

* On recent results Luongo is top 5 and so is Schneider (low games warning).

* On history NHL results Schneider is a DNQ and Luongo is top 5.

* On recent with historical Schneider is a DNQ and Luongo is top 5.

* On recent results + cap hit value Schneider is a top 5 and Luongo is top 5.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 07:00 PM
  #914
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
* On recent results Luongo is top 5 and so is Schneider (low games warning).

* On history NHL results Schneider is a DNQ and Luongo is top 5.

* On recent with historical Schneider is a DNQ and Luongo is top 5.

* On recent results + cap hit value Schneider is a top 5 and Luongo is top 5. (low games warning - fixed)
Oh yippy! Now I get to ask the question I was trying to get to. [ignoring the glaring contradictions I posted and that some points quoted above are debateable].

If Cory Schneider has no historical/NHL results to base the argument on and has only managed top 5 numbers over less than one season worth of games than why are the Vancouver Cancuks choosing Cory Schneider over Roberto Luongo?

Surely they must value something other than save percentage? GAA? History? Cap hit?

What could it be?

FYI - not that I believe this but to debunk the obvious contradiction - Cory Schneider's career save %.928 and GAA is 2.24 - good for 6th and 8th last year to compare and last year [that's 55 games remember] Luongo's save percentage was %.919 and GAA was 2.41 good for 12th and 16th respectively in the NHL. See what happens when you reverse the criteria? Tells a difference story.

So what on earth could this magical thing be that the Vancouver Canuck's value so much about Cory Schneider that would have them choose him over a Top 5 elite goalie in Roberto Luongo?

Ponder that and then ask yourself why [that answer] isn't included in the conversation about who is and isn't a top 5 goalie. That's your answer my friend. It's crystal clear.

Disclaimer: To be clear I think Luongo is a top 6-10 goalie but I felt it necessary to point out the contradiction that some people seem to cling to here because the minute you challenge the contradictory top 5 theory, posters kick and scream to try to prove their point. It's annoying.


Last edited by marty111: 12-06-2012 at 08:17 PM.
marty111 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 07:02 PM
  #915
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
There is no contradiction, they are simply being judged using different weighting criteria.
And just to add, if that's not a contradiction I don't know how to help you sir.

marty111 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 07:42 PM
  #916
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Toronto NEEDS a goalie. We don't NEED to trade Luongo to Toronto. Hell right now we don't even NEED to trade either goalie.
Hold on, did I say we need to trade Lu to Toronto? If I did, my bad. If I didn't, it seems like this is another discussion in which you create a scenario that you can contest.

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 07:45 PM
  #917
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
It's also inaccurate.



If Gillis felt this need, Luongo would have been dealt at the draft to TO. Clearly, that didn't happen.
Why would he have needed to make the trade in June? Even without a looming lockout, the season was still 3+ months away.

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 07:48 PM
  #918
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Edit: Also, CC's quote confuses need with want. The Canucks don't need to deal Luongo. They are under the cap and have both goalies signed. They _want_ to move Luongo to accommodate his request, but they don't need to do it. There is a difference.
The Canucks NEED to trade Roberto Luongo or Cory Schneider. Not tomorrow, but this trade needs to happen before the next trade deadline. It doesn't matter where.

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 07:54 PM
  #919
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 17,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
- VAN needs to move Lu - Inaccurate.


- TO doesn't need a goalie - Also inaccurate.
I disagree. Mike Gillis absolutely has to trade Luongo or Schneider. Where Gillis has leverage is he decides when that happens. If teams don't want to offer something of significance Gillis can wait until the deadline, sabotaging the team getting poor goaltending.

It's also not out of the realm of possibility that Toronto gets adequate goaltending from Reimer. Reimer has played well in the NHL in the past and a defensive minded coach amd the addition of a premiere defensive forward like Jay McClement might be enough to help cover for the young, relatively inexperienced goalie.

Toronto probably will need a goalie. It's far from a sure thing though at this point.

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 08:00 PM
  #920
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
- TO doesn't need a goalie - Also inaccurate.
.
I made no such inference. TO does not need to overpay with young players to get Luongo. I do not think they have any aspirations of winning a Cup in the next 3 years, so why would they overpay for a goalie built to help them right now?

I thought what I said was pretty easily understood, perhaps it's the 1699 pages of Lu proposals that have made some of you foggy.

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 08:03 PM
  #921
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
I disagree. Mike Gillis absolutely has to trade Luongo or Schneider. Where Gillis has leverage is he decides when that happens. If teams don't want to offer something of significance Gillis can wait until the deadline, sabotaging the team getting poor goaltending.

It's also not out of the realm of possibility that Toronto gets adequate goaltending from Reimer. Reimer has played well in the NHL in the past and a defensive minded coach amd the addition of a premiere defensive forward like Jay McClement might be enough to help cover for the young, relatively inexperienced goalie.

Toronto probably will need a goalie. It's far from a sure thing though at this point.
Inept offensively doesn't equate to premier defensively.

Mclement isn't going to all of a sudden transform Toronto into the New Jersey devils circa 1995.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 08:04 PM
  #922
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
I made no such inference. TO does not need to overpay with young players to get Luongo. I do not think they have any aspirations of winning a Cup in the next 3 years, so why would they overpay for a goalie built to help them right now?

I thought what I said was pretty easily understood, perhaps it's the 1699 pages of Lu proposals that have made some of you foggy.
Thought your post was very clear too.

marty111 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 08:31 PM
  #923
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,999
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
Hold on, did I say we need to trade Lu to Toronto? If I did, my bad. If I didn't, it seems like this is another discussion in which you create a scenario that you can contest.
What are you talking about? You said we NEED to trade Luongo. You pick one part of my post while ignoring the other parts that directly addressed what you said. Perhaps because you don't have a logical response so you deflect?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 08:32 PM
  #924
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,999
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
I made no such inference. TO does not need to overpay with young players to get Luongo. I do not think they have any aspirations of winning a Cup in the next 3 years, so why would they overpay for a goalie built to help them right now?

I thought what I said was pretty easily understood, perhaps it's the 1699 pages of Lu proposals that have made some of you foggy.
You said Vancouver NEEDS to get rid of Luongo, we don't. If Toronto doesn't want to pay a fair price for a top 5 goalie then they wont' get him. Simple as that. If they're happy with that then that's great, we will be happy too.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 08:37 PM
  #925
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
You said Vancouver NEEDS to get rid of Luongo, we don't. If Toronto doesn't want to pay a fair price for a top 5 goalie then they wont' get him. Simple as that. If they're happy with that then that's great, we will be happy too.
Thanks for the chuckles House.

marty111 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 02:32 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.