Farhan's $0.02: Dealing Luongo and Schneider = Chicago 2010?

[Farhan Lalji]

Farhan's $0.02: Dealing Luongo and Schneider = Chicago 2010?

Hey guys,

As the old saying goes, there are a million ways to skin a cat. In hockey terms, this means that there are a million ways to win a Stanley Cup. Teams like Boston in 2011 and New Jersey during their hey day, relied heavily on the prowess of their goaltending.....even though the team in front was pretty good as well.

On what can perhaps be considered the "opposite end of the spectrum", teams like 2008 Detroit, 2009 Pitsburgh, and 2010 Chicago won largely due to very exceptional teams in front......supplemented with goaltending that unexpectedly played a little better than they were supposed to......perhaps due to the fact that these goalies looked better with such tremendous talents playing in front of them.

Which leads me to the point of my post:

If the assets of dealing both Luongo and Schneider in independent deals gave the Canucks:
-Greater depth up front
-Greater depth on defense
-Greater depth on the farm

In return for average goaltending (with potential to get "hot" in the post-season) that could be concealed/protected with such a strong team in front, then do you think that the idea is worth exploring?

Now - I'm not saying that we should go out and get Ilya Brizgalov, but what if we did get a solid veteran of some kind? A goalie that clearly isn't in the upper echelon of the league, but can get the job done when it matters most?

For instance - we all know that Annti Niemi sucks balls, but the guy WAS good enough to win with the Chicago Blackhawks.......as was Marc Andre Fleury in 2009, and Jean-Sebastian Giguerre in 2007 (although in JSG's case, perhaps his best days are behind him.....even if playing post-season). Cam Ward in 2006 is another guy.

After seeing the way a guy like Hoyt is playing for the Capitals right now, I'm just wondering if that's all it could take? An unproven or "middle of the pack" type goalie that gets hot at the right time.

A tremendous team in front that gets good enough goaltending to completely curb stomp opponents...........much like the Chicago Blackhawks did in 2010.

[Cornuck]

Have you already forgotten the Cloutier era? I, for one, do not want to return to those dark days.

[donlever]

..it's only May 4th, you can't have made up your sales quota yet.

Going for the late month surge this time?

[wafflecombine]

While an interesting thought, I believe this strategy has too many risks - the least of which is to MG's continued employment.

Depending on how MG rolls, we will deal one of our goalies. Prevailing wisdom at this juncture is that it'll be Lou. What we get back is anybodies guess and I've seen people predict anything from a bag of pucks to jesus on skates.

My prediction is this will likely all be settled by draft day.

[Farhan Lalji]

..it's only May 4th, you can't have made up your sales quota yet.

Going for the late month surge this time?

LOL.

I feel burned out from last month. I also made my weekly quota yesterday and so I decided to sleep for 10 hours and log on to here.

[Farhan Lalji]

Have you already forgotten the Cloutier era? I, for one, do not want to return to those dark days.

Unfortunately, the Dan Cloutier situation is something that can arise when one uses a 'strategy' like this.

However - since we brought up Cloutier, let us also factor in the following:

1) During the WCE era, the Canucks never were an elite team in the manner that we were the past 2 years. The Canucks were primarily a one line team that were also very dependent on offensive defensemen that were extremely prone to defensive mistakes (i.e. Jovanovski, Sopel, etc.).

In 2002 for instance - yes - the Lidstrom/Cloutier goal helped shift the tied, but our goaltending wasn't the only reason why we lost. The Wings dominated us in every other area, and were simply too good for us. Against Minnesota and Calgary, our team was outworked.....combined with the fact that our team simply had no answer once it became clear that the WCE wasn't producing at the same level as they had in the regular season.

The point I'm trying to make is this: During the Dan Cloutier/WCE era, there were plenty of other factors involved as to why we truly weren't an elite team (as both our regular season performance and post-season performance indicated). We were a "good", but certainly not a "great" team, and it had much more to do than just "sub-par goaltending."

For this CURRENT era and core however, I don't see it being similar to a Dan Cloutier/WCE era situation. Unlike that team, we would have plenty more to work with up front and on 'D'............and I could see us being a little more "Chicago Blackhawks 2010" like.

[Farhan Lalji]

While an interesting thought, I believe this strategy has too many risks - the least of which is to MG's continued employment.

Depending on how MG rolls, we will deal one of our goalies. Prevailing wisdom at this juncture is that it'll be Lou. What we get back is anybodies guess and I've seen people predict anything from a bag of pucks to jesus on skates.

My prediction is this will likely all be settled by draft day.

You're probably right.

To me though - it's just frustrating that a Luongo deal, in all likelihood, will probably only fetch us a prospect and/or draft pick......which can help us 18/24 months from now, but won't help us in what I think is our "window of opportunity" (i.e. next season). Even with freed up cap space, there is absolutely no guarantee that we'd be able to bring in a KEY PLAYER to help us now.

I truly believe that if we don't win the cup next season, this "core" will not win a cup for us ever.......and it's not necessarily because our core will be too old, but because the youthful core's of many other teams will simply be that much better.

Having said that - I do understand the risks of "going balls out" and sacrificing prospects, picks, etc., for that "missing piece."

That's why I suggest the idea of atleast considering moving both Ginger and Lou. You get help during our "window", AND get prospects/draft picks for the future.

[Eddy Punch Clock]

..it's only May 4th, you can't have made up your sales quota yet.

Going for the late month surge this time?

May the fourth be with you.

[wafflecombine]

You're probably right.

To me though - it's just frustrating that a Luongo deal, in all likelihood, will probably only fetch us a prospect and/or draft pick......which can help us 18/24 months from now, but won't help us in what I think is our "window of opportunity" (i.e. next season). Even with freed up cap space, there is absolutely no guarantee that we'd be able to bring in a KEY PLAYER to help us now.

I truly believe that if we don't win the cup next season, this "core" will not win a cup for us ever.......and it's not necessarily because our core will be too old, but because the youthful core's of many other teams will simply be that much better.

Having said that - I do understand the risks of "going balls out" and sacrificing prospects, picks, etc., for that "missing piece."

That's why I suggest the idea of atleast considering moving both Ginger and Lou. You get help during our "window", AND get prospects/draft picks for the future.

I understand your skepticism and sense of urgency but lets look at the whole picture. Dealing Lou is -5.3M off the cap (Cory will likely claim at least 3M of that to start), we have defense pairing issues Ballard at 4.2 is an expensive 5-6 option. Phalsson at 2.5ish is UFA, Raymond despite the MG statement about sticking with players has to show up or he is gone too.

Add to that the likely expansion to a 70M cap and I think we have plenty enough juice to reach into the market and aquire at least 1 of the pieces you keep talking about.

Dealing Lou or even Cory themselves will not solve our issues.

[Todd Bersnoozi]

Woot, let's put all our money on Eddie Lack Attack!

Seriously, I doubt both goaltenders will be moved, but it'd be really interesting if they did that.

[dbr]

it'd be really interesting if they did that.

Crises usually are.

[donlever]

it'd be really interesting if they did that.

Crises usually are.

Cue Supertramp.

[Topper]

it'd be really interesting if they did that.

Crises usually are.

Cue Supertramp.

NO

[clem]

Crisis? What Crisis?

Don’t worry, be happy.

[Farhan Lalji]

Woot, let's put all our money on Eddie Lack Attack!

Errrrr...........not what I was getting at.

What I WAS getting at, was that perhaps we could still be relatively solid in net (when it matters most) with a decent veteran such as Cam Ward, JS Giguerre, MAF, Anti Niemi, Evgeni Nabakov, etc., as a starter...........a starter that would also be protected by a very deep team in front and on defense thanks to a hypothetical Luongo AND Schneider deal. Lack would then be the back-up.