So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

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

Moderator: Referees

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Meds » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:15 am

Hockey Widow wrote:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Hmmm... Since we're in no real rush to move Lou, I'm starting to wonder if the trade deadline might be the best time to move him. Teams that think they have a chance to go all the way and think they need a goalie might offer something we can't refuse.



A team thinking they could go all the way would already have a starter don't you think? And if they had a team set to go could they afford at the deadline to take a piece or two off the team. I just don't think the trade deadline would see a contender grab Lou but perhaps a team not going to make the playoffs might make a pitch but if you are Luongo do you waive?


I think Tampa Bay might run contrary to that line of thinking, HW.....

They have a great offense, their defense is decent, but their goaltending is nothing to write home about. Yes, Lindback is 4-1 to start the year, but his numbers are hardly inspiring. 2.80 and .913. He is relatively unproven and has zero playoff experience. The Bolts are certainly a team to watch in the East, but come playoffs, when the refs put the whistles away, PP time drops, teams step it up, and defense becomes more important. Suddenly the Lightning may find it difficult to score their way out of close games and they may find themselves relying heavily on their goaltending. Replacing Lindback with a guy like Luongo might take them from being a "team to watch" to being one of the favourites.

No, I don't think that Lou is going to Tampa. I don't think Gillis has anything in the mix with them. They are just an example of a team that could look at going all the way given just a change in goaltending.
User avatar
Meds
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Nuckertuzzi » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:07 am

darren wrote:
Nuckertuzzi wrote: He may eventually get over the hump here but he's had six years, five opportunities and failed miserably in most of them.


I'd point out that in every one of those "miserable failures", there have been two teams on the ice, and in every case but one*, that other team has gone on to win the Stanley Cup that year.

I know this horse has been beaten to death, but when you score 8 goals in 7 games, that's a miserable failure alright, but not by your goaltending. (even when Lou was getting shutouts we were only scoring 1 goal, so I have no time for the "lou sucked so bad that he made the team suck" argument). To win the cup, you have to be good, and you have to be lucky with injuries. That's just how it is. The Bruins were a lot luckier with injuries than we were in 2011 and they won. The 2012 Kings were a lot better team on the ice than they were on paper, and they were damn lucky with injuries all the way through, and they won. The 2010 Hawks were simply better and deeper than we were, as were the 2007 Ducks.

*(I think that 2009 against the Hawks is the one time that I would really hang it on Lou... the rest of the time we got beat by a better/healthier team).


2007 - Lu was outstanding despite the overtime blunder. The team was completely inept offensively. We had no chance, I loved his performance...no problem there.

2009 - The Hawks were deeper but that was the year I felt we really could've done something as we had some serious depth ourselves. Unfortnately that was the year when Lu's meltdowns began. Game 6 against the Hawks was an absolute killer because the team fought so hard to stay alive and the Twins and Sundin really came to life but Lu couldn't stop a puck to save his life. It was one deflating goal after another and at the worst possible times. Inexcusable when you supposedly have the better goaltender in the series.

2010 - The Hawks were an even better and deeper team and our defense was in shambles so I'll grant you that..but that's when you hope to get a spark from your goaltending and instead you get the opposite as he was equally as bad in this series as the season prior.

2011 - Third series in a row against a Hawks team where we should've had the goaltending advantage and didn't. Yet Lu managed to find a way get out of the series with a stellar Game 7...deserves praise for that but it was his horrible games in between that got us to that point.

The 8 goal Boston series argument is valid but people forget the fact that one of the biggest reasons we couldn't score is because the other goalie was doing to us exactly what I've been trying to say about what Lu should be doing more frequently to others. So what if he shuts out three games if you can't stop a beach ball in the other four...you need to win four games, right?

2012 - Lu was ok, couldn't be blamed but a few more stops could've helped. What I'd like to point out most about last years playoffs is what was the main reason the Kings won the Cup? Outstanding, reliable goaltending. Quick had a couple of so so games but recovered nicely and never let anything escalate to meltdowns. While he was simply out of this world it's proven you don't need that level of backstopping to win a Cup. But you have no chance if you get performances as volatile as Lu's. If we had just gotten one consistently good year out of him close to what Quick did, something he should be more than capable of, do you think we would still be Cupless right now with the teams we've had?



season prior.
Nuckertuzzi
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:52 pm

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Topper » Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:26 am

At times I feel like I'm reading a flash back of Bountiful here.

The twins are 32 and will continue on the same or better pace for years to come.......


This is the line up that took us to game seven two years ago.......


The status quo does not work.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 4270
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Potatoe1 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:30 am

RoyalDude wrote: Tell me, what is so wrong with Schroeder?


He's an undersized player who doesn't sore enough to compensate.

I think he can play, and I like the fact that we have a young, waiver exempt guy that can cover for injuries, but in the here and now, he doesn't look like a guy you should expect to play an important role in the playofffs.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:53 am

Nuckertuzzi wrote:
darren wrote:
Nuckertuzzi wrote: He may eventually get over the hump here but he's had six years, five opportunities and failed miserably in most of them.


I'd point out that in every one of those "miserable failures", there have been two teams on the ice, and in every case but one*, that other team has gone on to win the Stanley Cup that year.

I know this horse has been beaten to death, but when you score 8 goals in 7 games, that's a miserable failure alright, but not by your goaltending. (even when Lou was getting shutouts we were only scoring 1 goal, so I have no time for the "lou sucked so bad that he made the team suck" argument). To win the cup, you have to be good, and you have to be lucky with injuries. That's just how it is. The Bruins were a lot luckier with injuries than we were in 2011 and they won. The 2012 Kings were a lot better team on the ice than they were on paper, and they were damn lucky with injuries all the way through, and they won. The 2010 Hawks were simply better and deeper than we were, as were the 2007 Ducks.

*(I think that 2009 against the Hawks is the one time that I would really hang it on Lou... the rest of the time we got beat by a better/healthier team).


2007 - Lu was outstanding despite the overtime blunder. The team was completely inept offensively. We had no chance, I loved his performance...no problem there.

2009 - The Hawks were deeper but that was the year I felt we really could've done something as we had some serious depth ourselves. Unfortnately that was the year when Lu's meltdowns began. Game 6 against the Hawks was an absolute killer because the team fought so hard to stay alive and the Twins and Sundin really came to life but Lu couldn't stop a puck to save his life. It was one deflating goal after another and at the worst possible times. Inexcusable when you supposedly have the better goaltender in the series.

2010 - The Hawks were an even better and deeper team and our defense was in shambles so I'll grant you that..but that's when you hope to get a spark from your goaltending and instead you get the opposite as he was equally as bad in this series as the season prior.

2011 - Third series in a row against a Hawks team where we should've had the goaltending advantage and didn't. Yet Lu managed to find a way get out of the series with a stellar Game 7...deserves praise for that but it was his horrible games in between that got us to that point.

The 8 goal Boston series argument is valid but people forget the fact that one of the biggest reasons we couldn't score is because the other goalie was doing to us exactly what I've been trying to say about what Lu should be doing more frequently to others. So what if he shuts out three games if you can't stop a beach ball in the other four...you need to win four games, right?

2012 - Lu was ok, couldn't be blamed but a few more stops could've helped. What I'd like to point out most about last years playoffs is what was the main reason the Kings won the Cup? Outstanding, reliable goaltending. Quick had a couple of so so games but recovered nicely and never let anything escalate to meltdowns. While he was simply out of this world it's proven you don't need that level of backstopping to win a Cup. But you have no chance if you get performances as volatile as Lu's. If we had just gotten one consistently good year out of him close to what Quick did, something he should be more than capable of, do you think we would still be Cupless right now with the teams we've had?



season prior.

Geez I hope you don't do employee evaluations for a living :) thats quite the spin.... you could also say we got beat by a better team each year who generated and manufactured timely goals with some good old fashioned shithouse luck and hard work while Luongo wasn't Georges Vezina
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Reefer2 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:05 am

Strangelove wrote:Hmmm Lou to Florida for Weiss + Matthias.


Sedin / Sedin / Kassian
Higgins / Kesler / Burrows
Booth / Weiss / Hansen
Matthias / Manny / Lappy
Weise


I like this (except wonder about Booth/Higgins) , so the question I pose is what is expected from the third line? Should they be young full of piss/vinegar or vets who are calm and collective? I know they need to put some pucks in the net but what is realistic for a third line? I guess this is the area I would like MG/AV to spend more time on and figure this out.

Canucks always has injuries in the playoffs so the third line guys are needed to move up and produce as requried but in the past it seems our third line are always full of plumbers. I know it is easy to write and more difficult to do.
User avatar
Reefer2
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Strangelove » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:29 pm

Reefer2 wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Hmmm Lou to Florida for Weiss + Matthias.


Sedin / Sedin / Kassian
Higgins / Kesler / Burrows
Booth / Weiss / Hansen
Matthias / Manny / Lappy
Weise


I like this (except wonder about Booth/Higgins) , so the question I pose is what is expected from the third line? Should they be young full of piss/vinegar or vets who are calm and collective? I know they need to put some pucks in the net but what is realistic for a third line? I guess this is the area I would like MG/AV to spend more time on and figure this out.

Canucks always has injuries in the playoffs so the third line guys are needed to move up and produce as requried but in the past it seems our third line are always full of plumbers. I know it is easy to write and more difficult to do.


Well if they are all healthy your Vancouver Canucks have one (1) first line and two (2) 2nd lines (lines that are defensively responsible and can score). Also your Vancouver Canucks would have a few players who could slide into the Top 9 temporarily in case of injury (Schroeder, Lappy, Matthias). I put Booth with Weiss because they played together for 4 years in Florida....

Strangelove: The Peoples Poster
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 5919
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:10 pm

Topper wrote:At times I feel like I'm reading a flash back of Bountiful here.

The twins are 32 and will continue on the same or better pace for years to come.......




Who said that ? I corrected the dude on their age and reminded him that a lot of elite players play well into their late 30's . The way he keeps aging them they will be 40 when their contracts expire.... he talks of them like they are decaying like a moldy lunch in a locker.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Topper » Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:21 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Topper wrote:At times I feel like I'm reading a flash back of Bountiful here.

The twins are 32 and will continue on the same or better pace for years to come.......




Who said that ? I corrected the dude on their age and reminded him that a lot of elite players play well into their late 30's . The way he keeps aging them they will be 40 when their contracts expire.... he talks of them like they are decaying like a moldy lunch in a locker.

Feeling guilty?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 4270
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:07 pm

Should I ?? :?
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby RoyalDude » Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:42 pm

Strangelove wrote:Well if they are all healthy your Vancouver Canucks have one (1) first line and two (2) 2nd lines (lines that are defensively responsible and can score). Also your Vancouver Canucks would have a few players who could slide into the Top 9 temporarily in case of injury (Schroeder, Lappy, Matthias). I put Booth with Weiss because they played together for 4 years in Florida....



We should just trade team for team, Vancouver for Florida. At the rate Gillis is going he might as well cut to the chase and just get it over with.

I don't understand the logic of doing constant deals with one of the worst franchises over the last decade. You acquire enough of them ya just end up bad like them.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby RoyalDude » Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:44 pm

Topper wrote:Who said that ? I corrected the dude on their age and reminded him that a lot of elite players play well into their late 30's . The way he keeps aging them they will be 40 when their contracts expire.... he talks of them like they are decaying like a moldy lunch in a locker.

Feeling guilty?[/quote]

Blobby McSicilian completely mis-read what I said, by the time Kesler gets back to 100% health, it probably won't be til next season when the Sedins will be 33.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby RoyalDude » Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:49 pm

SKYO wrote:
Luongo + Schroeder for Weiss + Shore + Clemmenson <-- Good top 6 center rental and a 3rd line center who can help now and way into the future for top 6 center duties.


We ain't dealing with the Panthers, THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY. It makes no sense to trade Luongo at this age and contract to a team at the current state they are in. It's not a fit for Luongo, it's not a fit for Tallon and it's certainly not a fit for the owners there.

Luongo will be 34 in April, Gillimiblicle waits to trade him this off-season, he will turn 35 in the first year of his new team. The longer this goes on the less valuable his asset becomes. It's simple math. TRADE HIM NOW! GET WHAT YOU CAN!
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Strangelove » Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:21 pm

RoyalDude wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Well if they are all healthy your Vancouver Canucks have one (1) first line and two (2) 2nd lines (lines that are defensively responsible and can score). Also your Vancouver Canucks would have a few players who could slide into the Top 9 temporarily in case of injury (Schroeder, Lappy, Matthias). I put Booth with Weiss because they played together for 4 years in Florida....



We should just trade team for team, Vancouver for Florida. At the rate Gillis is going he might as well cut to the chase and just get it over with.

I don't understand the logic of doing constant deals with one of the worst franchises over the last decade. You acquire enough of them ya just end up bad like them.


Well I figure if their #1 line becomes our #3 line that'd probably be alright. :mex:

Strangelove: The Peoples Poster
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 5919
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: So, who would you like in a return for Luongo

Postby Nuckertuzzi » Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:10 pm

ukcanuck wrote:Geez I hope you don't do employee evaluations for a living :) thats quite the spin.... you could also say we got beat by a better team each year who generated and manufactured timely goals with some good old fashioned shithouse luck and hard work while Luongo wasn't Georges Vezina



Spin??? If those aren't facts I don't know what is.

I don't get this argument about being beat by luck and better teams. Didn't the Kings have a dozen teams above them in the standings last year? Misleading and quite rare maybe but they didn't need any lame 'better team' excuses, they just went out and did the job. And how did they do that? They were able to rely on their biggest strength which was in goal, and not only did Quick live up to expectations he exceeded them. Timely, lucky goals?? The only luck involved was other teams were lucky our goalie gave up bad goals at the worst times. Letting a bad angle wrister by Marchand over your shoulder in such a critical game..come on, those can't happen, especially not from someone who we know is and should be a lot better than that.
Nuckertuzzi
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests