Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

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: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby ClamRussel » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:12 pm

I think we're forgetting its in the rules that the Canucks must trade any 2nd round picks they possess come trade deadline.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3608
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby Hockey Widow » Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:36 am

RoyalDude wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:But again, RD, if you were GM who would you have traded for and what would you have given up? Or alternately do you have any information to provide that shows MG missed a golden opportunity to land a better centre and for what in return?

Just curious since it seems no matter what MG does, or does not do, you will find fault.


MG made the trade to appease the audience and save himself from the onslaught of criticisms for not making a trade. A good GM would have sacrificed ego and reputation and not made such a trade cause they know and knew deep down that such a player like Roy wouldn't mount to a hill of beans in making a difference for this team. I would have rather Gillis made like Wilson in San Jose and trimmed the fat instead of wasting valuable assets on rental players whom everybody knew wasn't the answer to all our problems.



You know we almost agree here. I think most of us knew that the Canucks weren't going far in the playoffs. I don't think any of us predicted a 4 and out though.

I would have been OK with MG trading Raymond, Ballard, Alberts, Weise and Lappy. They all would have fetched us something to playoff bound teams that wanted to add depth or even a team or two trying hard to make the playoffs. It sure would have signalled that he had no expectations of us going deep but it would have picked up a whack of draft picks, not a first mind you but a few 2nd's. He may even have gotten a prospect or two, not a grade A but some decent prospects. A lot of teams were looking for D so Ballard may have fetched the best return. Raymond may have garnered two picks.

But lets face it, with no depth ourselves to fill those holes there was no way MG could have sent the message that even though we were going to win the division we are tanking the season cause we don't have the team to go deep. With JS hurt he needed to get a centre. Doing nothing was not an option.

But had he trimmed the fat he would certainly have been making a bold move. Although he would have been criticized for doing so, loudly, and all those low level draft picks and prospects he got back would have been ridiculed.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby ukcanuck » Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:44 am

RoyalDude wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:But again, RD, if you were GM who would you have traded for and what would you have given up? Or alternately do you have any information to provide that shows MG missed a golden opportunity to land a better centre and for what in return?

Just curious since it seems no matter what MG does, or does not do, you will find fault.


MG made the trade to appease the audience and save himself from the onslaught of criticisms for not making a trade. A good GM would have sacrificed ego and reputation and not made such a trade cause they know and knew deep down that such a player like Roy wouldn't mount to a hill of beans in making a difference for this team. I would have rather Gillis made like Wilson in San Jose and trimmed the fat instead of wasting valuable assets on rental players whom everybody knew wasn't the answer to all our problems.

This is bullshit RD, no one jumped on Roy as a bad deal not even you. The consensus was he was a good pick up considering the lack of centre depth. The ONLY complaint was he would not fit under the salary going forward.

This is prime example of your crap, it's all 100 percent hindsight
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby RoyalDude » Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:07 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:But again, RD, if you were GM who would you have traded for and what would you have given up? Or alternately do you have any information to provide that shows MG missed a golden opportunity to land a better centre and for what in return?

Just curious since it seems no matter what MG does, or does not do, you will find fault.


MG made the trade to appease the audience and save himself from the onslaught of criticisms for not making a trade. A good GM would have sacrificed ego and reputation and not made such a trade cause they know and knew deep down that such a player like Roy wouldn't mount to a hill of beans in making a difference for this team. I would have rather Gillis made like Wilson in San Jose and trimmed the fat instead of wasting valuable assets on rental players whom everybody knew wasn't the answer to all our problems.



You know we almost agree here. I think most of us knew that the Canucks weren't going far in the playoffs. I don't think any of us predicted a 4 and out though.

I would have been OK with MG trading Raymond, Ballard, Alberts, Weise and Lappy. They all would have fetched us something to playoff bound teams that wanted to add depth or even a team or two trying hard to make the playoffs. It sure would have signalled that he had no expectations of us going deep but it would have picked up a whack of draft picks, not a first mind you but a few 2nd's. He may even have gotten a prospect or two, not a grade A but some decent prospects. A lot of teams were looking for D so Ballard may have fetched the best return. Raymond may have garnered two picks.

But lets face it, with no depth ourselves to fill those holes there was no way MG could have sent the message that even though we were going to win the division we are tanking the season cause we don't have the team to go deep. With JS hurt he needed to get a centre. Doing nothing was not an option.

But had he trimmed the fat he would certainly have been making a bold move. Although he would have been criticized for doing so, loudly, and all those low level draft picks and prospects he got back would have been ridiculed.


Fantastic Post, HW! Trimming the fat would have been the right move, THE BOLD MOVE! Just like the brilliant fat trimming Doug Wilson did down in San Jose at the Deadline. BRILLIANCE! But Gillis made like Gillis and completely wasted everybody's time, money and assets on that one. What else would anyone expect from a Players Agent whom prior to becoming a General Manager of your Vancouver Canucks, HAD ZERO EXPERIENCE as a GM of an NHL Franchise, let alone assistant or anything front office wise of an NHL team. He keeps making mistakes after mistakes after mistakes. How long must this continue? Pahlsson? Roy? Ballard? Bernier? Booth? so on and so on and so on?
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4307
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby RoyalDude » Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:14 pm

ukcanuck wrote:This is bullshit RD, no one jumped on Roy as a bad deal not even you. The consensus was he was a good pick up considering the lack of centre depth. The ONLY complaint was he would not fit under the salary going forward.

This is prime example of your crap, it's all 100 percent hindsight


Was the trade a success? The Players Agent dropped the ball YET AGAIN! Derek Roy - 1 goal in his last 35 playoff games. 4 goals scored for the Stars in almost the entire regular season prior to coming here at the Trade Deadline. How many goals did Roy end up with in the Regular Season? Isn't scoring goals an issue with this team? Isn't size combined with skill a necessity in the playoffs now? Derek Roy - 5'-9"???? Did they do their homework? I don't think so. It was a face saving trade to keep the whoring media and rabid fans happy and off his back. Completely self-serving, protecting his own ass at the expense of the hockey team. Mike Gillis is a Jack Ass.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4307
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby Island Nucklehead » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:02 pm

by RoyalDude on Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:04 pm

I like the trade


Mike Gillis did too. You, him, myself, pretty much everyone was wrong. It's not Gillis' fault Derek Roy was junk playing for us. Just like it's not Ray Shero's fault Brendan Morrow was awful playing for Pittsburgh. We got the best player in the deal, didn't give up anyone off our roster, nor anyone that would be playing for us anytime soon.

If San Jose's deadline deals were so fantastic they would have done better than the second round.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4033
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby RoyalDude » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
by RoyalDude on Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:04 pm

I like the trade


Mike Gillis did too. You, him, myself, pretty much everyone was wrong. It's not Gillis' fault Derek Roy was junk playing for us. Just like it's not Ray Shero's fault Brendan Morrow was awful playing for Pittsburgh. We got the best player in the deal, didn't give up anyone off our roster, nor anyone that would be playing for us anytime soon.

If San Jose's deadline deals were so fantastic they would have done better than the second round.


Yes, I guess I did like the trade, must've been drunk. Maybe I was trying to stay a little positive for the playoffs, not sure? But Chef Boi RD ain't paid the big bucks to make the right decisions that role belongs to Gillis. With his self appointed arrogance, I am smarter than everyone, ya'd think his shit don't stink. I'm just a fan here to analyze the Players Agent every moves in which all of them pretty much suck!

Not Gillis fault? No, it was Gillis fault, the man in charge, paid the big bucks to build a winning team, he was the one who decided to bring Roy here and as we all know how that went, like pretty much every one of the Players Agents trades.

Bad trades by Shero, hands down. Real Bad! Murray was a bum in San Jose, Morrow was a washed up bum in Dallas, and Iginla is over the hill and far away from the player he used to be. He should have retired last season. Real bad trades by Shero. All 3 of those players were complete shite before the trades.

San Jose's trade deadline deals, or should I say, Fat Trimming, seemingly were good enough to spank us in 4 straight games! Without Clowe and Murray they were far more faster and far more focused and disciplined. Unless that spanking had more to do with Gillis poor, mis-aligned evaluation of his own team than Doug Wilson's brilliant trimmings of the fat.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4307
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby dbr » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:30 am

RoyalDude wrote:But Chef Boi RD ain't paid the big bucks to make the right decisions that role belongs to Gillis. With his self appointed arrogance, I am smarter than everyone, ya'd think his shit don't stink. I'm just a fan here to analyze the Players Agent every moves in which all of them pretty much suck!


So what we should take from this is that your ability to evaluate the GM's moves "pretty much sucks."

Which is fine, like you said it's not your job to be credible or intelligent in hockey matters.. although those of us subjected to your posts will probably take note. Yet again.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby Lancer » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:35 am

dbr wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:But Chef Boi RD ain't paid the big bucks to make the right decisions that role belongs to Gillis. With his self appointed arrogance, I am smarter than everyone, ya'd think his shit don't stink. I'm just a fan here to analyze the Players Agent every moves in which all of them pretty much suck!


So what we should take from this is that your ability to evaluate the GM's moves "pretty much sucks."

Which is fine, like you said it's not your job to be credible or intelligent in hockey matters.. although those of us subjected to your posts will probably take note. Yet again.


His Gillis-slamming posts are kind of like mosquitoes in a swamp - expected, mildly annoying, but yet constant to the point where you only notice when they're absent... and even then, you don't really mind though you wonder if hell's frozen-over. :roll:
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.
User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Arnprior, Ontario

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby okcanuck » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:59 am

Actually I think RD has a man-crush for Gillis, his posts are almost exclusively about old-suitcase eyes.
User avatar
okcanuck
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:11 am
Location: Bestwank,BC

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby Arachnid » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:35 am

okcanuck wrote:Actually I think RD has a man-crush for Gillis, his posts are almost exclusively about old-suitcase eyes.


You too eh?! I always feel I am reading some weird homo-erotica when he posts, it's very discombobulating.

I vote we have an intervention and get him a nice young Canuck puck bunny to polish his nails! :D
Socks are dead puppets :(
Arachnid
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4904
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Old Berlin

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby Eddy Punch Clock » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:46 am

Arachnid wrote:
okcanuck wrote:Actually I think RD has a man-crush for Gillis, his posts are almost exclusively about old-suitcase eyes.


You too eh?! I always feel I am reading some weird homo-erotica when he posts, it's very discombobulating.

I vote we have an intervention and get him a nice young Canuck puck bunny to polish his nails! :D


:lol:

You're homo radar is always on Spidey.
2011..... the one that got away.
User avatar
Eddy Punch Clock
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:35 am
Location: The Wack

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby rikster » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:59 am

I think to win the Holy Grail you need a combination of a very good team and a little luck....And I think you can argue that a very good team can't win it without a little luck....

The Kings are an example of this, last year they were a very good team which had a lot of good fortune go their way and they rode both to a Cup win....

This year, fans and media are excusing their exit because they were a tired and injured team which had the poor fortune of facing the Blues in the first round followed by the Sharks....

I think the team Gillis built was very good, statistically the best in the league in every category, and got to the very last game of the season before bowing out....They had most everything going for them in 2011 but luck.....

I think the Hockey Gods spit on them for goofing around in the Chicago series and allowing it to go to overtime in game 7...Had they been able to finish that series in 4 or 5 I think they would have won the last game of that season....

So, regarding the work Gillis has done to date I don't get the critism...He built a team capable of winning a Cup which few GM's can claim....

I also think that if he had a do over, it would be those 2 Presidents Trophys....Maybe the team would have benefited from a few less points in the standings and a few more minutes to its younger players....

I also think we'll be surprised by the development of some of its prospects this year...The organization hasn't owned its farm team for far too long which can stagnate development and because of this has chosen to let many of its prospects develope over seas or in college which makes it harder to judge the system...I don't think you will see a Jensen type play in Europe now that they have their own farm team....

Take care...
rikster
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby Arachnid » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:04 am

Eddy Punch Clock wrote:
Arachnid wrote:
okcanuck wrote:Actually I think RD has a man-crush for Gillis, his posts are almost exclusively about old-suitcase eyes.


You too eh?! I always feel I am reading some weird homo-erotica when he posts, it's very discombobulating.

I vote we have an intervention and get him a nice young Canuck puck bunny to polish his nails! :D


:lol:

You're homo radar is always on Spidey.


It's called Gaydar™ :evil: And yeah, I need it on these here boards :D

Trade both Luo & Cory for Byz! Should I post this in ridiculously stupid trade thread too?
Socks are dead puppets :(
Arachnid
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4904
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Old Berlin

Re: Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

Postby Tciso » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:04 am

RoyalDude wrote:Not Gillis fault? No, it was Gillis fault, the man in charge, paid the big bucks to build a winning team, he was the one who decided to bring Roy here and as we all know how that went, like pretty much every one of the Players Agents trades.


RD, take a chill pill. Gillis addressed a serious need that the Canucks had at the moment, and he did it for a fair price. People are harping on Roy's goal production, but, he was still a 40 point center, on pace for 15 goals a season. Not bad by any stretch.

<sarcasm> Only 1 of the 16 playoff teams win the cup, so the other 15 teams, whether they made trades, or stood pat, obviously made mistakes, and just the cup winner made the right choice. </sarcasm> Seriously, even if we won the cup, you would still be mad at GMMG for something. Scratchy toilet paper in the team bathrooms, or a bad 8th round draft pick for example. Am I right RD?
The Cup is soooooo ours!!!!!!!
User avatar
Tciso
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], ukcanuck and 1 guest

cron