Farhan's random $0.02 (i.e. help other team sign Sundin?!)

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Post by Linden Is God »

Well by looking at Eklund's latest "rumour", we can come to one of the following conclusions

1. He stole his idea from Farhan

or

2. Farhan is really Eklund

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=16541
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:
User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Post by levelheaded »

Linden Is God wrote:Well by looking at Eklund's latest "rumour", we can come to one of the following conclusions

1. He stole his idea from Farhan

or

2. Farhan is really Eklund

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=16541
Have you ever seen them in the same room at the same time? Think about it... :lol:

As for Gomez he'd be a good alternative to Sundin if he does decide to go to NY, but if Gillis does trade for him I hope he doesn't cost us a roster player. Edler and Kesler should be off the table for a trade like that IMO.
User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Post by Linden Is God »

levelheaded wrote:
Linden Is God wrote:Well by looking at Eklund's latest "rumour", we can come to one of the following conclusions

1. He stole his idea from Farhan

or

2. Farhan is really Eklund

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=16541
Have you ever seen them in the same room at the same time? Think about it... :lol:

As for Gomez he'd be a good alternative to Sundin if he does decide to go to NY, but if Gillis does trade for him I hope he doesn't cost us a roster player. Edler and Kesler should be off the table for a trade like that IMO.
I read through the thread on that post. As much as I think there are many idiots on that site, someone made this proposal, which I could live with.

Pyatt, Bieksa, 1st, 2nd for Gomez and Mara.

I don't think it's the best possibility, but in order to get Gomez I could live with that. Not sure how the cap numbers fit though.

Quite honestly, if a deal for Gomez isn't worked out, I would love to see Prucha on the Canucks some how.
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:
User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Post by levelheaded »

Linden Is God wrote:
levelheaded wrote:
Linden Is God wrote:Well by looking at Eklund's latest "rumour", we can come to one of the following conclusions

1. He stole his idea from Farhan

or

2. Farhan is really Eklund

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=16541
Have you ever seen them in the same room at the same time? Think about it... :lol:

As for Gomez he'd be a good alternative to Sundin if he does decide to go to NY, but if Gillis does trade for him I hope he doesn't cost us a roster player. Edler and Kesler should be off the table for a trade like that IMO.
I read through the thread on that post. As much as I think there are many idiots on that site, someone made this proposal, which I could live with.

Pyatt, Bieksa, 1st, 2nd for Gomez and Mara.

I don't think it's the best possibility, but in order to get Gomez I could live with that. Not sure how the cap numbers fit though.

Quite honestly, if a deal for Gomez isn't worked out, I would love to see Prucha on the Canucks some how.
I'm loathe to give up two high picks in what is supposedly a strong draft class next year. Pyatt is expendable and with Bieksa you have to give to get, but I'd prefer to take Mara out and just leave it as a forward for forward deal. Anyways, this rumour is clearly bunk as Sundin has yet to even come close to making up his mind (which Eklund admits) so short of Sather and Gillis working on a trade BEFORE OTHER THINGS HAPPEN, this couldn't possibly have been discussed. Remember the higher the E rating, the more traffic to his site. ;)
User avatar
the Cunning Linguist
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:18 am
Location: If not in here then offthepost.ORG...
Contact:

Post by the Cunning Linguist »

Now why would Sather want to sign Sundin at 38 for $8-10m for even one year, when he has a 28 year old Gomez already locked up for $8m for the next 5 years? If I'm Slats, I'd say thanks but no thanks.
Image
Image
Farhan Lalji

Post by Farhan Lalji »

Linden Is God wrote:Well by looking at Eklund's latest "rumour", we can come to one of the following conclusions

1. He stole his idea from Farhan

or

2. Farhan is really Eklund

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=16541
:lol:

Eklund can only dream to be half the man that I am. :P

Speaking of Eklund and "off the wall" rumours, I'd like to 'one up' him on his Gomez idea.

1) What if the Canucks helped NYR clear cap space to land Sundin
2) What if the Canucks offered Roberto Luongo to NYR as part of a packaged deal? (Lunquist would obviously come our way).

If a Luongo/Lunquist deal was offered (with NYR also trying to clear cap space), what else do you think the Canucks could get?

If the Canucks could get some massive help up front, I'm thinking it that it could be worth it (lets just say we get Gomez, Zherdev, and Lunquist).

Sedin-Sedin-Bernier
Demitra-Gomez-Zherdev
Burrows-Kesler-Hordichuk
Wellwood-Johnson-Pyatt

etc., etc.

Lunquist,
Sanford,

Sorry if all this sounds retarded (I honestly don't know if this would be a fair deal). Still - the idea of trading Luongo for Lunquist (plus massive help up front) while helping NYR clear cap space (to land Sundin) does sound pretty awesome.

FYI - The Rangers would become my 2nd favourite team if this went down.
User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Post by Linden Is God »

Seriously Farhan?
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:
Farhan Lalji

Post by Farhan Lalji »

Linden Is God wrote:Seriously Farhan?
Seriously.

Like I said - I don't know if my "proposed trade" idea is fair or not (or just flat out lobsided :P ), but I stand by the theory behind the idea. Two things to consider:

1) IF the Canucks do NOT sign Sundin and are incapable of making any other "notable" transactions (signing Mark Parrish doesn't count), then this team will hardly be any better than it was last season (if it all). Even if this team makes the playoffs, they would most likely get spanked.

2) The longer the Canucks continue to be an average team, the more likely it is that Luongo will LEAVE the Canucks in two years. Luongo leaves here and we get NOTHING in return.

In my opinion, Luongo is - bar none - the best goalie in the NHL. However - what good is a franchise goalie if the team in front of you is weak? With 2 years left on Luongo's contract, the Canucks could get some really good value for Luongo...if they chose to go that route. Furthermore - they could potentially create a far more balanced team.

-The Canucks could get some much needed help up front
-The Canucks could still get a good enough goalie to play well come playoff time.

So - to answer your question - YES - if the Canucks could get the above two needs met in a hypothetical Luongo trade, I would strongly consider it.

In this instance - a team like NYR would get an upgrade in net while also getting help in signing Sundin. The Canucks on the other hand would get a massive upgrade on offense while still getting a very capable goalie...one that has playoff experience.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8363
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Post by Island Nucklehead »

no.


The Canucks strength these days is its team Defence and Goaltending. I'm don't want to lessen our team Defence for a shot of more offence. Sure we may score more goals, but we'll probably let more in too. I'd rather try to go to the trade route, sans Luongo...keep our GA down and try to score a few more.

WE need to work on the goal differential, not just scoring more goals.
dr.dork
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by dr.dork »

Farhan, not only does this prove you smoke too much BC bud, it pretty much proves you're running your own personal grow op and smokin' all the bud.

That is all fine and good, but your predictions are likely to be 3 orders of magnitude worse than Eklund.

There will be no trades any time soon. Trades are very rare with the new(ish) CBA.

We either get Sundin or we do not. The team that gets him will not give up core players to land him.
Farhan Lalji

Post by Farhan Lalji »

Island Nucklehead wrote:no.


The Canucks strength these days is its team Defence and Goaltending. I'm don't want to lessen our team Defence for a shot of more offence. Sure we may score more goals, but we'll probably let more in too. I'd rather try to go to the trade route, sans Luongo...keep our GA down and try to score a few more.

WE need to work on the goal differential, not just scoring more goals.
I definitely agree with your logic (i.e. focusing on goal differential and not just scoring more goals) and at one point, probably would have agreed with you 100%. Here iis my problem however:

As we've seen with this off-season (i.e. since July 1st), Vancouver isn't exactly a "hot bed" for free agents. Players are either not drawn to the city of Vancouver, or simply do not like the current style of hockey here (i.e. Veenyo's ultra defensive system).

Think about it - If YOU were a talented goal scorer and knew that your point totals would be affected here (which in effect, would hurt your market value), would YOU sign here?

For the first time in a long time, the Canucks had tons of freed up cap space. This was supposed to be OUR summer of free agency. Instead? We've seen practically every other player of significance sign elsewhere......either to a winning team like Detroit, or to the coolest city in the world like Manhattan. In a few weeks, Sundin will become just another example of that.

Look at Minnesota this past off-season. Demitra, Rolston, Radiovojicek, etc., have all departed as well. Gaborik will probably be gone as well. Do you think Minnesota's style of play has to do with anything?

Last year - Dallas decided to break away from their "ultra defensive system" and opened things up. Dallas took a positive step forward.

If Vancouver is going to compete with the "sexier" cities (i.e. Manhattan, Detroit, etc.), then we need to be about something. WHY would a top superstar (in his prime) WANT to come to Vancouver? Perhaps Vancouver needs to develop an IDENTITY....an identity for fast paced and EXCITING hockey?!

With that in mind - I think that's a reason that I have in wanting the Canucks to play a more EXCITING and OFFENSIVE brand of hockey. There's a reason why a team like the Devils, despite having won 3 Stanley Cups since 1995, were never really mentioned in the same class as teams like Detroit and Colorado.

Anyway - just my opinion.
Farhan Lalji

Post by Farhan Lalji »

dr.dork wrote:Farhan, not only does this prove you smoke too much BC bud, it pretty much proves you're running your own personal grow op and smokin' all the bud.

That is all fine and good, but your predictions are likely to be 3 orders of magnitude worse than Eklund.

There will be no trades any time soon. Trades are very rare with the new(ish) CBA.

We either get Sundin or we do not. The team that gets him will not give up core players to land him.
First off - LOL. :lol:

Secondly - I wasn't suggesting that my ideas would come to fruition. If anything - it will ultimately end up as something that I'll do on NHL 09 for my XBox.

However - I still stand by the LOGIC of what I proposed.


There is no use in having a franchise goalie, if the team in front of you is horse shit!

Stop. Go back. Read that sentence again. One more time.

Guys like Roberto Luongo, Martin Brodeur, and Mikka Kiprasoff should be paid at a PREMIUM when they can take a good team....and make them a GREAT one.

Last season - Luongo took a very very bad team, and made them mediocre. The season before that - Luongo took an average team....and helped them be decent.

Look at teams like Tampa Bay, Carolina, and Detroit these last 4 years. Khabibulin, Ward, and Osgood. NONE of these goalies are "superstars." However - these goalies just got hot at the right time, while the team in front of them was superb. The same can be said for Dwayne Roloson and the Oilers of 05/06.

When the Canucks played Dallas in the 07 playoffs, we were badly outplayed.....and yet Luongo carried our offensively-woeful team on his ass and allowed us to win. Thanks to our severe offensive woes (and Dallas' for that matter), the Canucks basically played the equivalent of 2 series in 1.

Result? In the next round - the Canucks were exhausted. A fatigued Luongo was also outplayed by the lesser talented JS Giguerre (who had the luxury of having a much better team in front of him as well).

The point I'm trying to make, is that perhaps the Canucks should seriously consider trying to make the team in FRONT of them better.....even if it's at the expense of our #1 asset....Roberto Luongo. With the assets from a Luongo deal, the Canucks can get much needed help up front....while also getting a "very good" goalie that would have an ability to get hot at the right time (like Cam Ward, Dwayne Roloson, Nikolai Khabibulin, and Chris Osgood did).
dr.dork
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by dr.dork »

Farhan, it does make sense to have a franchise goalie if your team is horse shit because it gives you something to build around. Pittsburg was horse shit when they drafted Lemieux, then they build around him. See Chicago with Kane and Toews. See Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin.

If we trade Luongo we better get a franchise player coming back the other way. And when was the last time two teams swapped franchise players ? It just doesn't happen very often.

So you want to trade a franchise goalie for a top 10 goalie (probably right about the #10 spot) coming back and a top 6 forward ? In addition to that top 10 goalie we wouldn't get much of a top 6 forward and certainly not a franchise type forward. Now we're still a horse shit team but we have nothing to build around.

It may be that we lose Luongo anyway. That argument flies, but I think we would be best off trading him to a contender at the trade deadline IF it looks like he isn't going to resign. I would try to extend his contract next summer and if that goes nowhere, then you seriously think of trading him. But if he wants to stay here, we continue to build around him.

I thought your theory was to take your strength and EXPLODE it. Luongo is our strength, so this new "logic" counters that "logic".

Anyway, I am joking here mostly and I realize you are just lobbing ideas around but unless your key player is demanding to leave you don't trade him.
User avatar
jchockey
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post by jchockey »

The crux of this entire argument, is whether or not Luongo wants to be part of a re-building process once again. He's suffered enough in Florida, will he go through the same thing in Vancouver when he knows that 29 other teams would love to have him on their team?

Like many of the other teams in the league, the team's future lies in the hands of the superstar.
Farhan Lalji

Post by Farhan Lalji »

dr.dork wrote:Farhan, it does make sense to have a franchise goalie if your team is horse shit because it gives you something to build around. Pittsburg was horse shit when they drafted Lemieux, then they build around him. See Chicago with Kane and Toews. See Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin.
The only difference here is that those teams took "horse shit" to incredible new levels. As result - those teams ended up drafting very high (top 3) for consecutive years....and as result, ended up with a number of very promising prospects.

As it relates to the Canucks - by the time guys like Hodgson, Graber, etc. REALLY start to get good (if they do), Luongo may not even be here.

If we trade Luongo we better get a franchise player coming back the other way. And when was the last time two teams swapped franchise players ? It just doesn't happen very often.
It doesn't have to be a "franchise player for franchise player type deal." It can be a franchise player (in our case, Luongo) for 3 players (2 of which are top 6 calibre forwards, and 1 of which would be a top 10 calibre goalie).

In my NYR example - NYR seemed to be a good fit. NYR wants to clear cap space so they can sign Sundin. NYR also has the luxury of actually wanting superstars to play there (i.e. allure of Manhattan) and so even if they lose guys like Gomez and Zherdev, they can easily replace those guys.

So you want to trade a franchise goalie for a top 10 goalie (probably right about the #10 spot) coming back and a top 6 forward ? In addition to that top 10 goalie we wouldn't get much of a top 6 forward and certainly not a franchise type forward. Now we're still a horse shit team but we have nothing to build around.
If the Canucks were trading Luongo, I'd want more than that (i.e. TWO top 6 forwards, and a top 10 goalie). Gomez, Zherdev, and Lunquist was what I had in mind. If it takes throwing poop like Pyatt in there to solidify the deal, then I'd do it.

If a deal like that went down, I think the Canucks would be a far more balanced team (even with the downgrade in net). Canucks would be solid up front, in the back end, and in net.

It may be that we lose Luongo anyway. That argument flies, but I think we would be best off trading him to a contender at the trade deadline IF it looks like he isn't going to resign. I would try to extend his contract next summer and if that goes nowhere, then you seriously think of trading him. But if he wants to stay here, we continue to build around him.
If the Canucks are out of contention at THIS YEAR'S playoff deadline, I'd consider pulling the trigger this year. Luongo will get us a shitload in return, but he'd probably get us even more at this year's deadline since he'd have one year on his contract left. If Luongo was traded at the deadline, the Canucks would literally be able to rape someone's farm.

I thought your theory was to take your strength and EXPLODE it. Luongo is our strength, so this new "logic" counters that "logic".

Anyway, I am joking here mostly and I realize you are just lobbing ideas around but unless your key player is demanding to leave you don't trade him.
I still believe in that theory, but I've admittedly changed my line of thinking as well. Before - I had the mindset that the Canucks were already strong on 'D' and goal, and that by taking that strength to a whole new level, they could actually pound teams into submission (similar to what Anaheim did with their defense and team toughness back in 06/07).

After seeing this year's summer however, I've come to the realization that teams with a defensive system will almost always be hard-pressed to sign free agents. I'm not sure what it was, but the fact that the Canucks have done practically NOTHING this summer (despite having so much free cap space) is a huge red flag for me.

The truth is that teams either want to go to a winning location (i.e. Detroit), a cool city (i.e. Manhattan), or a place where high flying offense is encouraged...because it can bolster someone's stats and in effect, give them bigger contracts.

And then - there are those certain players that flock to Florida and Phoenix to retire/die.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I'm worried that Veenyo's system (or just the negativity/pressure that this city creates) discourages players from signing here. I don't know what TV ratings and overall revenues are for the Canucks, but my guess is that this current style of hockey has had a negative impact on these.

If the Canucks want to attract the top free agents that are still in their primes, then perhaps changes are needed.
Post Reply