Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

[Island Nucklehead]

These assumptions do not seem consistent with the performance of the team, his selection as captain, or the fact his current and former team mates always have good things to say.

It really is very speculative to think Luongo is bad in the room or bad for the over all team culture. Most of the evidence points to the opposite.

Some guys are just bad interviews.

Yep. He is a goalie after all, and for the most part they're far and away the weirdest on the team.

I hate looking towards the Boston Bruins, because I fucking hate them, but you see what they did with Thomas/Rask and look at that as something we might want to consider. Obviously our situation is unique wrt Luongo's contract length, but the notion that Schneider will jump to a $3M/year deal is a bit stretched, imo.

Jimmy Howard played back to back 63 game seasons in Detroit, put up good numbers, and his extension was for $2.25M per. Carey Price played 134 NHL games before getting a $2.75M per deal.

I do think one of the will be dealt at the draft, but there's still the possibility of Gills "buying" the team some more time to figure out who stays and goes. A two-year $5M deal would probably do the trick and having both goalies for a combined cap hit of $8.1 would still put us in Nashville's goalie spending territory

[Corb]

HUGE difference in players here. Knowing how big Gillis is on the culture of the team, you know he'd keep Schneider over Luongo in this respect every day of the week.

I agree with that, and it is a point that isn't discussed much. MG surely knew all of those issues (about both players) before he offered Lou the retirement contract. Discussions like this only highlight why you shouldn't sign ANY player to a ridiculous term like 12 years. Sure the cap hit is palatable, but the term is crippling even with the throw away years.

[Potatoe1]

HUGE difference in players here. Knowing how big Gillis is on the culture of the team, you know he'd keep Schneider over Luongo in this respect every day of the week.

I agree with that, and it is a point that isn't discussed much. MG surely knew all of those issues (about both players) before he offered Lou the retirement contract. Discussions like this only highlight why you shouldn't sign ANY player to a ridiculous term like 12 years. Sure the cap hit is palatable, but the term is crippling even with the throw away years.

Would you have preferred an 8 year deal at about 7.3 ?

[wienerdog]

The scenario I often see laid out is a deal involving Lu for Lecavalier.

I'd much rather have Luongo on the books than Vinnie's contract. THAT is a crippling deal.

[Corb]

HUGE difference in players here. Knowing how big Gillis is on the culture of the team, you know he'd keep Schneider over Luongo in this respect every day of the week.

I agree with that, and it is a point that isn't discussed much. MG surely knew all of those issues (about both players) before he offered Lou the retirement contract. Discussions like this only highlight why you shouldn't sign ANY player to a ridiculous term like 12 years. Sure the cap hit is palatable, but the term is crippling even with the throw away years.

Would you have preferred an 8 year deal at about 7.3 ?

No.

[wienerdog]

HUGE difference in players here. Knowing how big Gillis is on the culture of the team, you know he'd keep Schneider over Luongo in this respect every day of the week.

I agree with that, and it is a point that isn't discussed much. MG surely knew all of those issues (about both players) before he offered Lou the retirement contract. Discussions like this only highlight why you shouldn't sign ANY player to a ridiculous term like 12 years. Sure the cap hit is palatable, but the term is crippling even with the throw away years.

Agreed that deals like his are hard to take, but MG was up against it when he had to resign Luongo.

MG's no dummy - he knew what he was getting into. But yeah, he probably had to swallow the throw-up in his mouth when he inked that deal, knowing full well he was rolling the dice somewhat with Roberto.

It is/was plain to see that our window is open now, and Gillis simply had to do what he had to do in order to give us the best chance of winning during this time. Any reservations he had about Luongo would've been secondary to knowing him to be far and away the best option of that moment.

Although you could argue that you could see both of a) Lu's uncertainties (CHI playoffs) and b) Schneider becoming a stud coming down the pipe, neither of these circumstances were Sure Things. It could've been that Schneider was bust and that Lu won a Cup with record shutouts. Hindsight, as they say.

I don't begrudge MG the deal - hell, we were only one away from a Cup. As much flak as he gets, it wasn't Lu's fault we lost, and we certainly wouldn't have got there w/o him.

Ironically, I think the retirement deal makes him more attractive in trade - not less - and that the term is scary only for teams w/o deep pockets. And as I laid out earlier, corb, I think Gillis can move him if it does come to that.

Unless Lu starts to blow a huge hissy fit at a 1A / 1B scenario, I can really see that as the way to go, and I'm in the camp that they both may stay on for a couple more years of making some runs at the Cup. That is, Schneider signs @ ~$2.5M per for two and we platoon the keepers at a total cap hit of about $8M.

[Corb]

Maybe sign Schneider to a life time contract as well, then just say to them both "work it out bitches"

Seriously though, I read your other post about teams who could take him on and it was well thought out. I guess I had mixed feelings about the contract at the time, and I still do. No point going over that ground again I suppose.

[GoalieDad]

I don't really disagree with Coco, that makes me smart too, but to make anything more out of who is starting tonight and why is pure Tom foolery.

So speculating that the Canucks might go in a radically different direction because Schneider seems to be emerging as a top end goaltender is "pure Tom foolery"?

Silly, superfluous sidebar: I used to go to school with a kid named Tom Fullery. Also had a Barber named Tim Burr. Oh yeah, and I actually had a client named Pete Moss. All true. (Funny too, I always thought.)

[Hockey Widow]

Jimmy Howard played back to back 63 game seasons in Detroit, put up good numbers, and his extension was for $2.25M per. Carey Price played 134 NHL games before getting a $2.75M per deal.

This is my hope. If we can get Cory to re-up for two years at anything under 3 million a year then we buy the time we need moving forward. Luongo's first window to ask for a trade would happen to coincide with that timing too. By then if we don't have a cup with them in net I think the decision moving forward becomes easier. All of this of course assumes that before then MG is not offered a deal he simply cannot refuse one way or the other, one that makes us infinitely better now and moving forward. Barring that I fall in the camp that wants to keep both of them.

[GoalieDad]

... most of the level-headed people that I have talked to still feel that Lu gives us the best chance, in the here and now, to win the cup.

With respect, this is the kind of expression people use to reference those with whom they agree. In other words, I suspect you will define only those who agree with you as being "level-headed".
Now, at the risk of being accused of making an appeal to authority -- particularly since there's no way for you to verify what I am about to claim -- I can tell you that EVERY Goalie Coach I've spoken with in the last ... I dunno, 10 months ... has little positive to say about the state of Luongo's game. And that's stating it kindly. No, these are not just other Goalie Dads or armchair types. I'm referring to guys who make their living (ALL of their living) training/coaching Goalies; NHL Goalies, AHL Goalies, NCAA Goalies, Major Junior and Junior A Goalies. I've not heard a single one of them ever express a remotely positive view of Luongo's current technique or his "trajectory".
Of course, they could ALL be wrong. Seriously. I know that the truth is not a popularity contest. But I also know that when that many recognized "experts" in a field consistently express a common perspective then it is certainly reasonable to give their view considerable weight. More weight than I might give a Goalie Dad or an armchair type(r).

[GoalieDad]

He is a goalie after all, and for the most part they're far and away the weirdest on the team.

I resemble that remark!

[Island Nucklehead]

Now, at the risk of being accused of making an appeal to authority -- particularly since there's no way for you to verify what I am about to claim -- I can tell you that EVERY Goalie Coach I've spoken with in the last ... I dunno, 10 months ... has little positive to say about the state of Luongo's game. And that's stating it kindly. No, these are not just other Goalie Dads or armchair types. I'm referring to guys who make their living (ALL of their living) training/coaching Goalies; NHL Goalies, AHL Goalies, NCAA Goalies, Major Junior and Junior A Goalies. I've not heard a single one of them ever express a remotely positive view of Luongo's current technique or his "trajectory".

Really? From January of last year til the playoffs Luongo was 21-7-4 and had a .939 save% and a 1.81 GAA. There is a reason he was a Vezina finalist LAST SEASON.

We can certainly debate his play during the playoffs and the start of this season, but I don't think his game has been as bad as you (or your experts) say for that long.

We also need to keep in mind that since his typical October he's been 4-2 with a 2.16 GAA and a .923. Not world-beating, but not dismal numbers (of course we can all debate the "savability" of some of his goals against). This current situation is really more about Schneider playing exceptionally than it is Lou poorly...

[GoalieDad]

Now, at the risk of being accused of making an appeal to authority -- particularly since there's no way for you to verify what I am about to claim -- I can tell you that EVERY Goalie Coach I've spoken with in the last ... I dunno, 10 months ... has little positive to say about the state of Luongo's game. And that's stating it kindly. No, these are not just other Goalie Dads or armchair types. I'm referring to guys who make their living (ALL of their living) training/coaching Goalies; NHL Goalies, AHL Goalies, NCAA Goalies, Major Junior and Junior A Goalies. I've not heard a single one of them ever express a remotely positive view of Luongo's current technique or his "trajectory".

Really? From January of last year til the playoffs Luongo was 21-7-4 and had a .939 save% and a 1.81 GAA. There is a reason he was a Vezina finalist LAST SEASON.

This isn't news to you, I'm sure, but those numbers ARE the reason he was a Vezina finalist. Those numbers are also virtually indistinguishable from Schneider's last season. Both Goalies recorded those numbers behind the most productive offense / stingiest defence / Pesidents Trophy Winning / record-setting, regular season Masters. And I know, I know ... Schneider played fewer games and blah, blah, blah. I don't want to re-launch that debate. I'm just passing on what has been communicated to me by the Coaches with whom I've spoken. Despite Luongo's glitzy numbers they are uniformly unimpressed.
And another point I'll mention, none of those Coaches ever reference those numbers (wins, Save %,, GAA) when they are analyzing/evaluating the state of a goalies game, good or bad. In other words, they seem to base their evaluations on something other than the "numbers" that everyone else relies on to heap praise or scorn. At the very least, I'd say that's interesting.

[wienerdog]

I don't really disagree with Coco, that makes me smart too, but to make anything more out of who is starting tonight and why is pure Tom foolery.

So speculating that the Canucks might go in a radically different direction because Schneider seems to be emerging as a top end goaltender is "pure Tom foolery"?

Silly, superfluous sidebar: I used to go to school with a kid named Tom Fullery. Also had a Barber named Tim Burr. Oh yeah, and I actually had a client named Pete Moss. All true. (Funny too, I always thought.)

I know people whose real-life given birthnames are:

Elizabeth Taylor
Steve Austin
James Bond
and
Bart Simpson

True story.

[GoalieDad]

I know people whose real-life given birthnames are:

Elizabeth Taylor
Steve Austin
James Bond
and
Bart Simpson

True story.

Are you shittin me? James Bond? I know a James Bond too! He's a Surgeon. Is he the same guy that you know?