HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

More Luongo Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-23-2012, 12:42 PM
  #501
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Luongo has a NTC and so far has shown only an interest in Florida, and potentially Toronto, so it really doesn't matter who has questionable goaltending

Actually this is dead wrong, he has only stated FLA as a team he would definitely go to, and said every where else he is open to, even saying he like CHI. Actually he endorsed going to CHI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedubn1 View Post
Certain people in this thread are not reading what LeBrun wrote correctly.. so I'll post it again and clarify:



LeBrun is saying that both sides are in agreement that contracts will not be grandfathered in. It doesn't sound like this was even an issue and both sides knew these loopholes needed to be closed.

The NHL wants this rule to apply to all current contracts that were originally signed for five years or greater, the NHLPA only wants this rule to affect current contracts that still have 7 years or more to go before they expire... regardless of original contract length.

The NHL's version would affect a lot of NHL players.. the NHLPA's version would affect only a handful.

Certain teams like Buffalo who have locked up Tyler Myers to 7+ year contracts don't have to worry because it's extremely unlikely that Myers will think about retiring before his deal is complete... other teams should definitely be nervous.
Then he is actually wrong, and we know this because the last offer tabled by the PA was actually grandfathering in all contracts. Normally I really like him, but you can't argue when the facts say otherwise. Things could change.

Also it would not matter for teams taking on these contracts in the NHL offer, as they went after the originaly teams to sign these offers.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:05 PM
  #502
veedubn1
Registered User
 
veedubn1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post

Then he is actually wrong, and we know this because the last offer tabled by the PA was actually grandfathering in all contracts. Normally I really like him, but you can't argue when the facts say otherwise. Things could change.

Also it would not matter for teams taking on these contracts in the NHL offer, as they went after the originaly teams to sign these offers.
Let's say you're right about what the PA "wants".

Considering this issue only affects the teams and not the players whatsoever (the players get paid no matter what, the teams that signed the contracts must eat the cap after the player retires) I would guess that the PA is only posturing on this issue and will give in provided the players get paid in full or the league concedes elsewhere.

The teams are the only entity to get punished with this new rule, and the team owners are asking for it to be applied to all contracts currently signed for 5+ years.

The players have nothing to gain if they push for grandfathering in contracts.

veedubn1 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:19 PM
  #503
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,210
vCash: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
How is an assumption made when it has been quoted, on major media outlets througout the CBA negotiation that they have discussed addressing all of these issues. Clearly you havent been paying attention to CBA negotiations. Difference being, you and many others are continuing to push your agenda's stating that cap circumvention will be permited to contrinue, to justify Lou's contract and value. Amazing how so many seem to prefer fantasy than the real world.
And you are being guided by your assumptions on what the new CBA will look like. Seems like you are in your own fantasy world, and you can continue to push your own Luongo-devaluing-agenda from there.... unless you are willing to step back into the real world, admit that there is no CBA in place, therefore, leaving Luongo's value up in the air. Otherwise, look up what the word "assumption" means; because you are doing it as much as anyone else in this thread.

Kass Effect is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:21 PM
  #504
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
In 2011, playoffs, he was pulled 1 more game then Tim Thomas, so do you also think think he is crap? Actually the two were very similar, and both were talked about as odds on favorite to win the Con Smythe if their teams won that year. But don't let that bother you.
In the Stanley Cup Final, the single most important set of games in his entire career, Luongo posted
a save percentage of .850 or lower in four of the seven games in the Final. Disturbingly, in two of the games his save percentage was below .800. If Vancouver had even a half-way decent goalie, they win that series and the Cup. Instead, they didn't just get less then adequate goaltending, they received awful net minding, and it cost them. If you think in any way, shape or form he compares on any level to what Tim Thomas did that spring, you are confused, mis-informed or perhaps just a pathological liar. It's like comparing a triangle to a bag or marbles and marvelling at their similarity. Vancouver got to the Final that year in spite of Luongo, not because of him. Amazingly, he had SEVEN games where he posted a save percentage below .850 in that one playoff run. Anyway you slice it, that's just plain awful and players that **** the bed come playoff time not surprisingly don't fetch huge hauls in a trade. He's so widely inconsistent that no team can seriously pin their hopes on him. In the playoffs, the guy is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and that's a risk very few GM's - including Mike Gillis - want to take. In last years playoffs, he played just two games, one of them, again with a sub .850 save percentage and the year before the trip to the Final, Luongo played 12 playoff games for the Canucks and delivered a save percentage of .857 or lower in FIVE of the games. Teams don't win championships with that kind of "clutch" goaltending. Vancouver fans seem to think that nobody understands why the Canucks want to trade Luongo. We all get it. What we don't quite understand is why Toronto would want to acquire him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
Again judging by history, of goalies in Lui's class there is actually on above average chance he plays at his curent rate until 38, then falls off to average until 40. This has been discussed to death. Examples were given with comparables. I would say odds are more like 70-30 for playing well until 40 going by history. Unlike your factless opinion.
Well, here's the problem, you're saying he'll continue playing at his "current rate" and the problem is, I was saying it's unlikely he'll deliver "elite goaltending" for the next five or six years. If you think his "current rate" (which statistically was virtually indentical to journeyman Jose Theodore who was on a much lousier team) is elite, your credibility has just gone out the window. If the best case scenario is Luongo maintains the decidedly average performance he put in last season (when he lost his starters job in the playoffs) why would any team acquire the burden on his contract? Are you starting to see the point? You can say the odds are 70-30 that he will play well into his 40's (an absurd claim, by the way because he's not even playing that well *now*) but the real question is: will he play better than Jacob Markstrom or whoever else Florida could acquire an pay $5 million a season without being handcuffed to a long burdensome contract? I think the odds of that are more like 4-96, and that's really the point.

FerrisRox is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:25 PM
  #505
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
In 2011, playoffs, he was pulled 1 more game then Tim Thomas, so do you also think think he is crap?
Tim Thomas played every minute of every game during the Bruins run to the Cup. So... what the hell are you talking about?

FerrisRox is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:38 PM
  #506
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
In the Stanley Cup Final, the single most important set of games in his entire career, Luongo posted
a save percentage of .850 or lower in four of the seven games in the Final. Disturbingly, in two of the games his save percentage was below .800. If Vancouver had even a half-way decent goalie, they win that series and the Cup. Instead, they didn't just get less then adequate goaltending, they received awful net minding, and it cost them. If you think in any way, shape or form he compares on any level to what Tim Thomas did that spring, you are confused, mis-informed or perhaps just a pathological liar. It's like comparing a triangle to a bag or marbles and marvelling at their similarity. Vancouver got to the Final that year in spite of Luongo, not because of him. Amazingly, he had SEVEN games where he posted a save percentage below .850 in that one playoff run. Anyway you slice it, that's just plain awful and players that **** the bed come playoff time not surprisingly don't fetch huge hauls in a trade. He's so widely inconsistent that no team can seriously pin their hopes on him. In the playoffs, the guy is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and that's a risk very few GM's - including Mike Gillis - want to take. In last years playoffs, he played just two games, one of them, again with a sub .850 save percentage and the year before the trip to the Final, Luongo played 12 playoff games for the Canucks and delivered a save percentage of .857 or lower in FIVE of the games. Teams don't win championships with that kind of "clutch" goaltending. Vancouver fans seem to think that nobody understands why the Canucks want to trade Luongo. We all get it. What we don't quite understand is why Toronto would want to acquire him.




Well, here's the problem, you're saying he'll continue playing at his "current rate" and the problem is, I was saying it's unlikely he'll deliver "elite goaltending" for the next five or six years. If you think his "current rate" (which statistically was virtually indentical to journeyman Jose Theodore who was on a much lousier team) is elite, your credibility has just gone out the window. If the best case scenario is Luongo maintains the decidedly average performance he put in last season (when he lost his starters job in the playoffs) why would any team acquire the burden on his contract? Are you starting to see the point? You can say the odds are 70-30 that he will play well into his 40's (an absurd claim, by the way because he's not even playing that well *now*) but the real question is: will he play better than Jacob Markstrom or whoever else Florida could acquire an pay $5 million a season without being handcuffed to a long burdensome contract? I think the odds of that are more like 4-96, and that's really the point.
nice that you can read the stats, but instead of calling ppl liars, id suggest you go and watch the series and then re-think your opinion.
those of us who watched know that luongo cost the team in game 6 (i was there), the other 3 losses were team meltdowns. I suppose by your theory, with a better goalie they would've won game 7 by a score of 0 to -1?

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:57 PM
  #507
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,210
vCash: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
In the Stanley Cup Final, the single most important set of games in his entire career, Luongo posted
a save percentage of .850 or lower in four of the seven games in the Final. Disturbingly, in two of the games his save percentage was below .800. If Vancouver had even a half-way decent goalie, they win that series and the Cup. Instead, they didn't just get less then adequate goaltending, they received awful net minding, and it cost them. If you think in any way, shape or form he compares on any level to what Tim Thomas did that spring, you are confused, mis-informed or perhaps just a pathological liar. It's like comparing a triangle to a bag or marbles and marvelling at their similarity. Vancouver got to the Final that year in spite of Luongo, not because of him. Amazingly, he had SEVEN games where he posted a save percentage below .850 in that one playoff run. Anyway you slice it, that's just plain awful and players that **** the bed come playoff time not surprisingly don't fetch huge hauls in a trade. He's so widely inconsistent that no team can seriously pin their hopes on him. In the playoffs, the guy is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and that's a risk very few GM's - including Mike Gillis - want to take. In last years playoffs, he played just two games, one of them, again with a sub .850 save percentage and the year before the trip to the Final, Luongo played 12 playoff games for the Canucks and delivered a save percentage of .857 or lower in FIVE of the games. Teams don't win championships with that kind of "clutch" goaltending. Vancouver fans seem to think that nobody understands why the Canucks want to trade Luongo. We all get it. What we don't quite understand is why Toronto would want to acquire him.




Well, here's the problem, you're saying he'll continue playing at his "current rate" and the problem is, I was saying it's unlikely he'll deliver "elite goaltending" for the next five or six years. If you think his "current rate" (which statistically was virtually indentical to journeyman Jose Theodore who was on a much lousier team) is elite, your credibility has just gone out the window. If the best case scenario is Luongo maintains the decidedly average performance he put in last season (when he lost his starters job in the playoffs) why would any team acquire the burden on his contract? Are you starting to see the point? You can say the odds are 70-30 that he will play well into his 40's (an absurd claim, by the way because he's not even playing that well *now*) but the real question is: will he play better than Jacob Markstrom or whoever else Florida could acquire an pay $5 million a season without being handcuffed to a long burdensome contract? I think the odds of that are more like 4-96, and that's really the point.
He didn't lose his job. Damnit this is frustrating seeing outsiders watch a few highlights then make these assumptions. For those who didn't notice:

-He had a very good season. Carried the team at times. Another PT for the Canucks starter.
-The team was without D. Sedin, Allstar- dman Edler was playing injured, same with Kesler. 3 of our top 4 skaters out or hurt vs. the eventual Cup winner
- The team was playing away from there usual strengths, trying to be more defensive with key offensive guys in rough shape or absent. It wasn't working for them. Not really surprising.
-Luongo wasn't the reason Canucks were down 2-0, the Canucks were. The team didn't play very well. The skaters looked flat, and the team needed a spark if they were going to get back into the series. Considering the injuries, there really weren't any viable options to realistically provide more offense. Why not give Schneider a chance? Goalie's get pulled when the team is playing poor. That IS part of the game. And how many times does it make the team play better? Sometimes. Worth a shot in my books, and many NHL coaches seem to agree.
-Schneider has done everything possible to earn more games (nothing to do with Luongo) He's been a star goalie at every level, and has every indication of doing it in the NHL

So, now Vancouver has a 2nd star goalie ready to show his stuff, and a flat team down 2-0. They needed a change. The team still lost the next game! Then D.Sedin comes back for game 4, and they win, then go to overtime the next game. If all you guys can come up with is "Luongo lost his job", then don't get mad if we don't take your opinions seriously. Schneider is cheaper and younger. Canucks believe he's going to be a star, it only makes sense to move the older guy. Think about it. Its not Luongo losing his job, its business. Luongo still is, and will be a starter for years to come. Just so happens that Schneider will be too. If we were moving Schneider instead, all you would be doing now, is devaluing Schneider because "he was moved to keep an older, more expensive goalie that chokes in big games. If the Canucks don't believe in him enough to move Luongo instead, then I'm not giving anything good for an unproven backup that rode the sucess of a PT-winning defence." or some crap like that.

Kass Effect is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:18 PM
  #508
ZKassian9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Lu also has 3 shutouts in the finals and was considered the frontrunner for the Conn Smythe if the Canucks would have won. The Canucks were decimated by injuries with all their top dmen injured. Bieksa, Hamhuis, Rome, Edler and Salo were all hurt. H Sedin and Kesler were injecting pain killers just to lace up. That series is not on Lu. You can hate all you want but Lu is better than 20 other NHL teams starters. Grow a clue.


Last edited by spiny norman: 12-23-2012 at 02:22 PM. Reason: not needed
ZKassian9 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:31 PM
  #509
LPH
[hello] :)
 
LPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 39,311
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
In the Stanley Cup Final, the single most important set of games in his entire career, Luongo posted
a save percentage of .850 or lower in four of the seven games in the Final. Disturbingly, in two of the games his save percentage was below .800. If Vancouver had even a half-way decent goalie, they win that series and the Cup. Instead, they didn't just get less then adequate goaltending, they received awful net minding, and it cost them. If you think in any way, shape or form he compares on any level to what Tim Thomas did that spring, you are confused, mis-informed or perhaps just a pathological liar. It's like comparing a triangle to a bag or marbles and marvelling at their similarity. Vancouver got to the Final that year in spite of Luongo, not because of him. Amazingly, he had SEVEN games where he posted a save percentage below .850 in that one playoff run. Anyway you slice it, that's just plain awful and players that **** the bed come playoff time not surprisingly don't fetch huge hauls in a trade. He's so widely inconsistent that no team can seriously pin their hopes on him. In the playoffs, the guy is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and that's a risk very few GM's - including Mike Gillis - want to take. In last years playoffs, he played just two games, one of them, again with a sub .850 save percentage and the year before the trip to the Final, Luongo played 12 playoff games for the Canucks and delivered a save percentage of .857 or lower in FIVE of the games. Teams don't win championships with that kind of "clutch" goaltending. Vancouver fans seem to think that nobody understands why the Canucks want to trade Luongo. We all get it. What we don't quite understand is why Toronto would want to acquire him.




Well, here's the problem, you're saying he'll continue playing at his "current rate" and the problem is, I was saying it's unlikely he'll deliver "elite goaltending" for the next five or six years. If you think his "current rate" (which statistically was virtually indentical to journeyman Jose Theodore who was on a much lousier team) is elite, your credibility has just gone out the window. If the best case scenario is Luongo maintains the decidedly average performance he put in last season (when he lost his starters job in the playoffs) why would any team acquire the burden on his contract? Are you starting to see the point? You can say the odds are 70-30 that he will play well into his 40's (an absurd claim, by the way because he's not even playing that well *now*) but the real question is: will he play better than Jacob Markstrom or whoever else Florida could acquire an pay $5 million a season without being handcuffed to a long burdensome contract? I think the odds of that are more like 4-96, and that's really the point.


you are so misinformed, try watching the games and then make actual judgements. A goalie doesn't win/lose every game, sometimes it's the team as a whole that played poorly (crazy thoughts I know).

LPH is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:18 PM
  #510
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by catbiz View Post
I'm a panthers fan from day 1 and always liked Lou. We just don't have a pressing need for him at this time . Since Vancouver s wiling to trade him to Florida for less than what they would accept from Toronto, could Florida trade for him then flip him to Toronto for a package of somesorts that makes every team have improvement?
I don't think so. I imagine Lu would probably insist on having his new team honour his NTC, and once he's in Florida again I doubt he waives for Toronto.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:43 PM
  #511
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
I don't think so. I imagine Lu would probably insist on having his new team honour his NTC, and once he's in Florida again I doubt he waives for Toronto.
I believe once you waive it, it no longer exists.

DougGilmour93 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:56 PM
  #512
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
I believe once you waive it, it no longer exists.
No one's perfect.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:09 PM
  #513
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
Lots of if's and buts from suprisingly, another Cannuck fan trying to justify high worth, with a dog contract. Make no mistake about it, contracts will no longer be permitted to be burried in the minors; why this is even talked about is beyond reasonable. Most if not all your suggestions revolve around cap circumvention, and finding ways around the contract. It has been beyond clear, these types of contracts will no longer be allowed, and the notion of a "rich team" taking on the contract because they have money is a very unrealistic thought process, especially as it relates to real life business. There is a real tangible risk with his contract, not just monetarilly, but from a long term cap standpoint. It's quite funny actually reading all these Nucks fans, dancing around the issues, and not acknowledgeing the actual facts. Continue putting lip stick on that pig of a contract/cap hit, because its still what it is, regardless of how much you try to put on.



First, how about you actually debate the caveats outlined with facts of your own, instead of listing assumptions as counter-points. Seems kind of ironic. But let's pick apart your post regardless:




1) No one has to justify his contract. It's a cap-circumvention deal that is so good it is being outlawed. Until someone, anyone, can post a legitimate argument why a poor contract needs punishing, this is fact. Either it's illegally great and being punished for it, or it's poor and being punished because...?


2) Can't be buried in the minors? Are they getting rid of the waiver wire? Please explain. When a rich team has a contract that has a cap-hit is greater than its salary, and they no longer want it on the books, why wouldn't they waive/trade said contract? What about LTIR?


3) Finding ways around the contract, and building into it multiple "outs", _is_ what makes it a cap-circumvention deal... Think about that. It's because the risk is mitigated so easily, that they are saying it's a BDC. If there were no "outs", nobody would care because there is as much detriment to the deal as there is benefit. It's because there is almost no long-term downside (trade/waive/LTIR) that this deal is as fantastic as it is. Are you following?


4) If the risk is too great, then _no_ team should want Luongo at all. Forget "worth", or negotiating value. His should be a contract to be avoided at all costs. But then... why are GMs calling? Why even entertain the thought of bringing in Luongo, even at a heavy discount, if his contract is one of the worst in the league? Makes no sense.





Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
This is an absolute load of crap. Another reach yet again. Teams circumvented the CBA, plain and simple. They were able to find a loop hole and exploit it. There was nothing tanginble in the CBA to indentify this and to condemn and penalize teams for doing so. This has nothing to do with ego or Gary or his realtionship with teams and owners. These contracts are not good for the NHL, and it has been discussed by Bettman and others that this will no longer continue. Suggesting Gary did wrong is a joke, he was a part of a CBA process, that the owners found a way around it and exploited it. Plain and simple.



Nothing tangible? Why was NJ punished for the Kovalchuk deal?



I fully admit that these contracts aren't good for the NHL. They circumvent the natural rules of the CBA. Which Gary knew, and allowed, at the time. Yet now he's going back and righting his past wrongs? Is he really that stupid? The smarter course would be to grandfather his current mistakes in and put new rules in place for all new contracts. But this retroactive business only makes him look like the amateur he actually is. He should be embarrassed... But then he is not long for his office anyways.



Regardless, let's say it does go through and all BDCs are "punished" in this way, what do they do about waivers? Further, what do they do when the current CBA runs out in 7-8 years, Gary Bettman is no longer the commissioner, and this is again on the table for the NHLPA and NHL. Still no options?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:13 PM
  #514
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedubn1 View Post
Let's say you're right about what the PA "wants".

Considering this issue only affects the teams and not the players whatsoever (the players get paid no matter what, the teams that signed the contracts must eat the cap after the player retires) I would guess that the PA is only posturing on this issue and will give in provided the players get paid in full or the league concedes elsewhere.

The teams are the only entity to get punished with this new rule, and the team owners are asking for it to be applied to all contracts currently signed for 5+ years.

The players have nothing to gain if they push for grandfathering in contracts.
100% wrong. It's money coming out of the players end. They could double dip on these contracts currently. Example; If Luongo retires, and the Canucks have to keep his cap hit, that is 5.3 million they can not spend, and 5.3 million the NHLPA looses out on.

The only way I see the players conceding this is if there is a loop hole to get around that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
In the Stanley Cup Final, the single most important set of games in his entire career, Luongo posted
a save percentage of .850 or lower in four of the seven games in the Final. Disturbingly, in two of the games his save percentage was below .800. If Vancouver had even a half-way decent goalie, they win that series and the Cup. Instead, they didn't just get less then adequate goaltending, they received awful net minding, and it cost them. If you think in any way, shape or form he compares on any level to what Tim Thomas did that spring, you are confused, mis-informed or perhaps just a pathological liar. It's like comparing a triangle to a bag or marbles and marvelling at their similarity. Vancouver got to the Final that year in spite of Luongo, not because of him. Amazingly, he had SEVEN games where he posted a save percentage below .850 in that one playoff run. Anyway you slice it, that's just plain awful and players that **** the bed come playoff time not surprisingly don't fetch huge hauls in a trade. He's so widely inconsistent that no team can seriously pin their hopes on him. In the playoffs, the guy is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and that's a risk very few GM's - including Mike Gillis - want to take. In last years playoffs, he played just two games, one of them, again with a sub .850 save percentage and the year before the trip to the Final, Luongo played 12 playoff games for the Canucks and delivered a save percentage of .857 or lower in FIVE of the games. Teams don't win championships with that kind of "clutch" goaltending. Vancouver fans seem to think that nobody understands why the Canucks want to trade Luongo. We all get it. What we don't quite understand is why Toronto would want to acquire him.




Well, here's the problem, you're saying he'll continue playing at his "current rate" and the problem is, I was saying it's unlikely he'll deliver "elite goaltending" for the next five or six years. If you think his "current rate" (which statistically was virtually indentical to journeyman Jose Theodore who was on a much lousier team) is elite, your credibility has just gone out the window. If the best case scenario is Luongo maintains the decidedly average performance he put in last season (when he lost his starters job in the playoffs) why would any team acquire the burden on his contract? Are you starting to see the point? You can say the odds are 70-30 that he will play well into his 40's (an absurd claim, by the way because he's not even playing that well *now*) but the real question is: will he play better than Jacob Markstrom or whoever else Florida could acquire an pay $5 million a season without being handcuffed to a long burdensome contract? I think the odds of that are more like 4-96, and that's really the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
Tim Thomas played every minute of every game during the Bruins run to the Cup. So... what the hell are you talking about?
Most of this has been responded to, and responded to well, the stats I had, were from a previous debate, which I will try to find, comparing the two in their runs, the great equalizer was the tbay serries, where from what I heard, as I missed most of it Thomas stank up the joint.

And again how is posting 2 shutouts crapping the bed in the finals?

Anyway, what I wanted to actually add, was, you comparison was wrong, as it was comparing to goalies in his calibur, if you look at Theodores stats, they don't compare with the exception of one maybe two years. but there is more examples of him playing at his curent rate until the age of 38. Then not. go back and look through the threads, again it has been talked about to death. You bring nothing new to this portion, just wrong comparisons.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:15 PM
  #515
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
I believe once you waive it, it no longer exists.

Not exactly. It is a team option when said player is acquired. The destination team can choose to honour the NTC, or not. For example, CLB chose not to honour Carter's NTC upon acquisition. While I believe LA did for Richards.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 05:14 PM
  #516
catbiz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 18
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
I don't think so. I imagine Lu would probably insist on having his new team honour his NTC, and once he's in Florida again I doubt he waives for Toronto.
Thanks for the input.

catbiz is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 06:36 PM
  #517
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
Actually this is dead wrong, he has only stated FLA as a team he would definitely go to, and said every where else he is open to, even saying he like CHI. Actually he endorsed going to CHI.


Source?

TOGuy14 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 06:44 PM
  #518
Shawnathon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
Tim Thomas played every minute of every game during the Bruins run to the Cup. So... what the hell are you talking about?
This is exactly what I was going to say. It would appear Racerjoe doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

Shawnathon is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 07:11 PM
  #519
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnathon View Post
This is exactly what I was going to say. It would appear Racerjoe doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.
I can admit when I am wrong, which it would I appear I was, however if you go back and look at the Tbay series, he was lit up like a xmas tree. The two had very similar playoffs, there was an entire comparison on the two done somewhere here, look it up if you don't believe me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Source?
Fox radio station interview for CHI, just about every interview for being open to everywhere.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 08:35 PM
  #520
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Source?
He was playing in some poker tournament over the summer and was asked during an interview what his thoughts were on playing in Chicago. He answered it by saying he would be happy to play for any city with passionate fans.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 09:59 PM
  #521
sunnyvale420
Registered User
 
sunnyvale420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Glad to see discussion has moved away from all toronto proposals. Browsing capgeek i see washingtons goalies are both rfa in 2013. Whats the status on them re-signing and any interest from washington fans for lou? What could the teams move to make a deal

sunnyvale420 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:00 AM
  #522
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
I can admit when I am wrong, which it would I appear I was, however if you go back and look at the Tbay series, he was lit up like a xmas tree. The two had very similar playoffs, there was an entire comparison on the two done somewhere here, look it up if you don't believe me.
He had a 2.71 GAA, two shutouts and won the series. He had one game where he posted a sub .850 save percentage. If that's your definition of "being lit up like a Christmas tree" then how would you describe Luongo's play in the Boston series?

FerrisRox is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 02:32 AM
  #523
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyvale420 View Post
Glad to see discussion has moved away from all toronto proposals. Browsing capgeek i see washingtons goalies are both rfa in 2013. Whats the status on them re-signing and any interest from washington fans for lou? What could the teams move to make a deal
Washington isn't really in a position to deal from futures since they are still intergrating a few positions in. I also don't see the Caps dealing Marcus Johansen(sp?) either. Which is a piece I'd want coming back.

mstad101 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 06:15 AM
  #524
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,931
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
In the Stanley Cup Final, the single most important set of games in his entire career, Luongo posted
a save percentage of .850 or lower in four of the seven games in the Final. Disturbingly, in two of the games his save percentage was below .800. If Vancouver had even a half-way decent goalie, they win that series and the Cup. Instead, they didn't just get less then adequate goaltending, they received awful net minding, and it cost them. If you think in any way, shape or form he compares on any level to what Tim Thomas did that spring, you are confused, mis-informed or perhaps just a pathological liar. It's like comparing a triangle to a bag or marbles and marvelling at their similarity. Vancouver got to the Final that year in spite of Luongo, not because of him. Amazingly, he had SEVEN games where he posted a save percentage below .850 in that one playoff run. Anyway you slice it, that's just plain awful and players that **** the bed come playoff time not surprisingly don't fetch huge hauls in a trade. He's so widely inconsistent that no team can seriously pin their hopes on him. In the playoffs, the guy is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and that's a risk very few GM's - including Mike Gillis - want to take. In last years playoffs, he played just two games, one of them, again with a sub .850 save percentage and the year before the trip to the Final, Luongo played 12 playoff games for the Canucks and delivered a save percentage of .857 or lower in FIVE of the games. Teams don't win championships with that kind of "clutch" goaltending. Vancouver fans seem to think that nobody understands why the Canucks want to trade Luongo. We all get it. What we don't quite understand is why Toronto would want to acquire him.




Well, here's the problem, you're saying he'll continue playing at his "current rate" and the problem is, I was saying it's unlikely he'll deliver "elite goaltending" for the next five or six years. If you think his "current rate" (which statistically was virtually indentical to journeyman Jose Theodore who was on a much lousier team) is elite, your credibility has just gone out the window. If the best case scenario is Luongo maintains the decidedly average performance he put in last season (when he lost his starters job in the playoffs) why would any team acquire the burden on his contract? Are you starting to see the point? You can say the odds are 70-30 that he will play well into his 40's (an absurd claim, by the way because he's not even playing that well *now*) but the real question is: will he play better than Jacob Markstrom or whoever else Florida could acquire an pay $5 million a season without being handcuffed to a long burdensome contract? I think the odds of that are more like 4-96, and that's really the point.
The sheer amount of misinformed ignorance from this post is astonishing. Just...wow. Do yourself a favor and actually bother to research before you make a series of poorly paragraphed gibberish barely worth acknowledgement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
He had a 2.71 GAA, two shutouts and won the series. He had one game where he posted a sub .850 save percentage. If that's your definition of "being lit up like a Christmas tree" then how would you describe Luongo's play in the Boston series?
Last man standing. Only Daniel Sedin and Alex Burrows were playing healthy in that series. Eight of our top ten were injured, one of whom was gone entirely and two that were taking painkillers just to stand. Luongo may have been inconsistent but to fault him for that loss is pure ignorance.


Last edited by Bourne Endeavor: 12-24-2012 at 06:21 AM.
Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
12-25-2012, 08:06 PM
  #525
jayball75
Registered User
 
jayball75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
In the Stanley Cup Final, the single most important set of games in his entire career, Luongo posted
a save percentage of .850 or lower in four of the seven games in the Final. Disturbingly, in two of the games his save percentage was below .800. If Vancouver had even a half-way decent goalie, they win that series and the Cup. Instead, they didn't just get less then adequate goaltending, they received awful net minding, and it cost them. If you think in any way, shape or form he compares on any level to what Tim Thomas did that spring, you are confused, mis-informed or perhaps just a pathological liar. It's like comparing a triangle to a bag or marbles and marvelling at their similarity. Vancouver got to the Final that year in spite of Luongo, not because of him. Amazingly, he had SEVEN games where he posted a save percentage below .850 in that one playoff run. Anyway you slice it, that's just plain awful and players that **** the bed come playoff time not surprisingly don't fetch huge hauls in a trade. He's so widely inconsistent that no team can seriously pin their hopes on him. In the playoffs, the guy is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and that's a risk very few GM's - including Mike Gillis - want to take. In last years playoffs, he played just two games, one of them, again with a sub .850 save percentage and the year before the trip to the Final, Luongo played 12 playoff games for the Canucks and delivered a save percentage of .857 or lower in FIVE of the games. Teams don't win championships with that kind of "clutch" goaltending. Vancouver fans seem to think that nobody understands why the Canucks want to trade Luongo. We all get it. What we don't quite understand is why Toronto would want to acquire him.




Well, here's the problem, you're saying he'll continue playing at his "current rate" and the problem is, I was saying it's unlikely he'll deliver "elite goaltending" for the next five or six years. If you think his "current rate" (which statistically was virtually indentical to journeyman Jose Theodore who was on a much lousier team) is elite, your credibility has just gone out the window. If the best case scenario is Luongo maintains the decidedly average performance he put in last season (when he lost his starters job in the playoffs) why would any team acquire the burden on his contract? Are you starting to see the point? You can say the odds are 70-30 that he will play well into his 40's (an absurd claim, by the way because he's not even playing that well *now*) but the real question is: will he play better than Jacob Markstrom or whoever else Florida could acquire an pay $5 million a season without being handcuffed to a long burdensome contract? I think the odds of that are more like 4-96, and that's really the point.
We could end this thread and the idea of any other luongo trade thread in the future with that beautiful summary. You sir literally spoke my every thought and I hope others see the light in regard to luongo. I can't believe he was brodeurs replacement in the Olympics and that people say he's a gold medal winner. He almost cost one of the most talented teams in the history of hockey a gold medal with his weak mind by allowing a goal in the last two minutes to force ot for the gold medal. It was a good thing for him they won because we'd be adding another one to his list of non clutch performances.

jayball75 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 10:53 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.