I don't understand why some of these GM's don't just trade for Luongo. It has got to be a pride thing or something at this point. It's as if they're chuckling to themselves thinking how desperate Gillis must be and whoever blinks first is the weak GM.
I don't understand why some of these GM's don't just trade for Luongo. It has got to be a pride thing or something at this point. It's as if they're chuckling to themselves thinking how desperate Gillis must be and whoever blinks first is the weak GM.
Because of his contract, the way the new CBA works and Lui's increasing meltdowns.
Hes still a quality goalie on most nights but will he still be even 3 years from now? The meltdowns are going to resemble Jose Theodore soon as he ages.
I think we had a chance to dump him on the leafs but as fate would happen they were saved from the deal. I just dont see us getting any kind of value for him now. If we can get a team just to take him now I do so.
But instead I trade Cory Schneider and keep Luongo. Luis worth more to us here than in trade value. Schneider has decent trade value.
That really doesn't mean much. Not implying Schroeder is the better defensive player but using +/- to make that claim is about as accurate as using GAA to compare goalies.
Everyone likes to jump on the +/- as soon as it's used, and I agree, it's not the very best way to judge someone defensively, but it is indicitive of their overall play. If a guy is 6-3, killing penalties and playing against top lines, and comes out at +1 on Florida, you can probably infer that he's a better defenisve player than a negative player on a good team playing sheltered minutes against lower lines.
If a guy is +15 and another guy is -15 it tells you something. Not that all those goals were his fault, but generally he's on the ice for more goals against than for. That's where +/- can be useful. In this case they're pretty similar so it doesn't tell you much, but if you use it with other factors it becomes quite clear who the better prospect is. And it's Shore by leaps and bounds.
Everyone likes to jump on the +/- as soon as it's used, and I agree, it's not the very best way to judge someone defensively, but it is indicitive of their overall play. If a guy is 6-3, killing penalties and playing against top lines, and comes out at +1 on Florida, you can probably infer that he's a better defenisve player than a negative player on a good team playing sheltered minutes against lower lines.
If a guy is +15 and another guy is -15 it tells you something. Not that all those goals were his fault, but generally he's on the ice for more goals against than for. That's where +/- can be useful. In this case they're pretty similar so it doesn't tell you much, but if you use it with other factors it becomes quite clear who the better prospect is. And it's Shore by leaps and bounds.
Shore might be the better prospect, but you should really watch the goals Schroeder has been on the ice for. It's just really crap luck and nothing more. There has been one goal all season where he could've done something to prevent it. Other than that it's crap like the 2 horrible GA Schneider in the Dallas game, him being on the ice for the Alberts - Schneider miscue, Edler turning the puck over, Schroeder just coming on the ice as a goal is scored. That's 5 of his 7GA right there.
His possession numbers are good relative to the minutes he plays.
You're dreaming. Shore is a big, young, PF centre that is adjusting to the NHL nicely. Twice as many points as Jordan Schroeder on a terrible Florida team and holding his own defensively at +1 (Schroeder is a negative) plus some time on the PK every game. He's going to be a solid centre for a long time. And their second round pick would be in the top 45 anyway. Those are two pretty good assets and would be a great deal for Vancouver.
Just like to say, players producing numbers on terrible teams isn't always a great indicator of what they are.
Just like seeing players produce at top line rates with good players, then get paid to be top line players on their own struggle (Ville Leino anyone?).
Just like to say, players producing numbers on terrible teams isn't always a great indicator of what they are.
Just like seeing players produce at top line rates with good players, then get paid to be top line players on their own struggle (Ville Leino anyone?).
Or David Booth as a young PF 30 goal scorer?
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
He was one of the best players on the ice last night (and that's with Lappy as his C).
Booth is paid to score goals, hasn't done it yet, but they're coming.
He's scorer at a 20g pace by seasons end, he always does.
Here is where we do agree: David Booth is just fine. He uses his size, and plays a hard game. He takes hits to make plays too. He's a valuable player, who plays a role, even when he's not scoring.
I simply don't agree with the hate on for booth. He had 16 goals in 59 games last year. Was on pace for 25 goals. That's what we knew he was and that's what he provided. The goals will come. I'm a fan of booth.
Booth was the best player on the ice last night,and Luongo should have been pulled after that whiff of a shot.
Would you have pulled Schneider on Saturday after his misplaying of the puck gave the Kings their second goal? Or is this just another classic Luongo double standard?
Would you have pulled Schneider on Saturday after his misplaying of the puck gave the Kings their second goal? Or is this just another classic Luongo double standard?
I like both goalies so I'm not one to bash one and not the other. I was pissed when Schneider coughed that puck up, won't see me defending him for that.
But if I'm the coach, as soon as Luongo lets up 3 (2 if they are terrible) I'd yank him. Schneider seems to be able to re-group much better than Luongo, and as evidenced by the LA stinker he can still come back and be dominant.
Luongo can survive one bad/or late goal ( Olympics/game 7 chicago etc etc) but as soon as a couple softies get past him (no not the Calgary game) I'd look to replace him.
I like both goalies so I'm not one to bash one and not the other. I was pissed when Schneider coughed that puck up, won't see me defending him for that.
But if I'm the coach, as soon as Luongo lets up 3 (2 if they are terrible) I'd yank him. Schneider seems to be able to re-group much better than Luongo, and as evidenced by the LA stinker he can still come back and be dominant.
Luongo can survive one bad/or late goal ( Olympics/game 7 chicago etc etc) but as soon as a couple softies get past him (no not the Calgary game) I'd look to replace him.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, per se, but it's an argument that could be made about any goaltender. If several soft goals are going by them, you start looking at your backup.
I also realize you quantified that your statement wasn't specific to the Calgary game, so I'm not saying this to you so much as repeating it in general - the first goal was the only softie in Calgary, IMO.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, per se, but it's an argument that could be made about any goaltender. If several soft goals are going by them, you start looking at your backup.
I also realize you quantified that your statement wasn't specific to the Calgary game, so I'm not saying this to you so much as repeating it in general - the first goal was the only softie in Calgary, IMO.
Yeah he didn't have much of a chance on the other goals, you'd have to really hate him to try to pin those on him. My point still stands with Luongo. When things go south they really go south and he starts to let in some very very weak goals.
With the exception of a few games so far in his career, Schneider doesn't seem to struggle with this. One of the best games I've ever seen him play was a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of the Wild. The amount of amazing saves he made that game was remarkable, deserved to lose that one in the double digits.
With Luongo, if he is off he seems to just give up. A tonne of the blame needs to go to AV. There is NO reason to have a goalie play through 8 goals against, and really unless the games close at 5 its pretty much enough.
It seems Bob McKenzie has said "I'm not sure Luongo waives to go to Fla at this point". I've heard him say it twice in last few weeks. Can you imagine being Mike Gillis? In the summer Botch reported that Gillis and Burke were talking about making a deal for Luongo - but at that point Lu wouldn't waive for Leafs cause he was waiting for Fla. NOW, Mckenzies suggesting he might not waive for Fla and it doesn't appear Leafs need a goalie now.
If it's true, and we don't know if it is - what a joke. Luongo's really playing with fire. He pretty much screwed Mike Gillis over this. I hope it isn't true.
It seems Bob McKenzie has said "I'm not sure Luongo waives to go to Fla at this point". I've heard him say it twice in last few weeks. Can you imagine being Mike Gillis? In the summer Botch reported that Gillis and Burke were talking about making a deal for Luongo - but at that point Lu wouldn't waive for Leafs cause he was waiting for Fla. NOW, Mckenzies suggesting he might not waive for Fla and it doesn't appear Leafs need a goalie now.
If it's true, and we don't know if it is - what a joke. Luongo's really playing with fire. He pretty much screwed Mike Gillis over this. I hope it isn't true.
It seems Bob McKenzie has said "I'm not sure Luongo waives to go to Fla at this point". I've heard him say it twice in last few weeks. Can you imagine being Mike Gillis? In the summer Botch reported that Gillis and Burke were talking about making a deal for Luongo - but at that point Lu wouldn't waive for Leafs cause he was waiting for Fla. NOW, Mckenzies suggesting he might not waive for Fla and it doesn't appear Leafs need a goalie now.
If it's true, and we don't know if it is - what a joke. Luongo's really playing with fire. He pretty much screwed Mike Gillis over this. I hope it isn't true.
Shouldn't have jerked him around in the playoffs by going back to the backup goalie for game 4 after he lost game 3.
