The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset with...

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

Moderator: Referees

The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset with...

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:57 pm

The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset with...

So with Luongo and Schneider now both history, a lot of people seem to be quite upset at the return we got for both goalies:

Luongo and Schneider essentially equated to Horvat, Matthias, and Markstrom.

While I agree that these returns weren't ideal, I will take this time and give credit to Gillis for making the best out of an EXTREMELY bad situation.

Pre 2012 lock-out, Gillis was shopping Luongo and was looking for a rate of return that a superstar goalie would command. Burke offered him Luke Schenn and a 1st, and Gillis rightfully told Burkey to go [mod edit: use some judgement]

Then........the lock-out occurred, and with the lockout came the new CBA...........and with the new CBA, a new reality was created where Luongo's contract would be an absolute nightmare to take on.

But aside from all that, and considering all circumstance, I don't think the return on both Schneider and Luongo is all too bad.

Horvat WILL be a damn good player in this league. This is pretty much as close to a guarantee as one will get. So in this sense - I believe that Schneider for Horvat will eventually be a fair value trade..........if not, even more in our favor.

With Luongo's age and contract, I also believe that Matthias and Markstrom were pretty good deals for us. Matthias is a glorified plugger, but I think he'll be a solid 3rd line center for us for years to come. More importantly - he wants to be in Vancouver.

Markstrom has World class superstar potential. Period. Yes - he struggled mightily in Florida, but talent like that just doesn't disappear. If Markstrom somehow does re-discover his game while in Vancouver, we could have a real gem on our hand. Low risk, potentially high reward.

With 85% of Lou's contract off the books, combined with the impending buyout of Booth, the Canucks will have a lot of cap space to explore different options.

So with all this in mind, am I the only one that is NOT disappointed by our overall returns for Schneider and Luongo?

Perhaps we could have received more for Schneider, but Horvat is still a damn good return. Under the new CBA, getting rid of Luongo's contract was a victory in itself in my opinion.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Hockey Widow » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:08 pm

We have no idea that Schenn and a first were offered. Just rumour. I heard Kadri and a 1st. So which is it if anything?
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:24 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:We have no idea that Schenn and a first were offered. Just rumour. I heard Kadri and a 1st. So which is it if anything?


Good point HW, as I agree that all of this most likely is/was heresey.

I guess the ultimate point I was trying to make, is that given the new CBA terms post-lockout, and given the fact that Gillis had idea no this was coming and had already publicly announced that they'd be proceeding with Schneider as their new #1, I think Gillis did pretty well here in a horrific situation.

Given how the Canucks lost to the Sharks, and given the Luongo wouldn't be fetching us anything under the new CBA, we needed a top prospect. Hence - Schneider for Horvat.

Canucks move Lou, and yet still stay solid in net due to the emergence of Lack.

Personally - I'm not seeing too much of a problem here. Simply put - Gillis made the best out of a bad situation caused by Bettman.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby BurningBeard » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:27 pm

The Brown Knight wrote:Simply put - Gillis made the best out of a bad situation caused by Bettman.

I don't need to be RD to know that statement does not ring true.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:42 pm

BurningBeard wrote:
The Brown Knight wrote:Simply put - Gillis made the best out of a bad situation caused by Bettman.

I don't need to be RD to know that statement does not ring true.


Fair enough, but let me ask you this:

After the new CBA came into effect and the 2013 season started, what more could Gillis have done?

After the 2012 playoffs had ended, Gillis had already announced that they would be moving forward with Schneider (and signed Schneider to a long term deal). They made their intentions known to Luongo that they would try and move him.

At the time, Gillis wanted fair market value for a goalie that was one year removed from leading his team to a Game 7 Stanley Cup.

Then.................the lockout and new CBA occured and Gillis became royally fucked.

Correct?
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Hockey Widow » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:47 pm

Correct except it seems all the other GMs predicted that there would be some type of cap recapture come into effect.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby BurningBeard » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:53 pm

Backup for a second and consider who signed Luongo to that contract. Was everyone aware that the NHL was trying to stop back diving contracts when Luongo's was signed? Yeah, I think so.

Are there many other factors at play (ownership, Luongo himself, the CBA, Burke, etc)? Of course.

But by no means would I say "Gillis made the best out of a bad situation caused by Bettman." That lets Gillis off the hook way too easily. You don't think the league let it be known that they were going to try to punish teams for these contracts? They stated as much.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Hockey Widow » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:58 pm

My problem with all of that is that the league approved the contract, when they could have refused and punished the Canucks the way they did the Devils. But to not grandfather in these contracts was pure BS, but predictable. So ya it's on MG and he did miscalculate Luongo's value and did miscalculate that there would be something in the new CBA to further complicate the deal.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Mondi » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:59 pm

Luongo was re-signed after getting lit up in back-to-back year by the Hawks.

IMO, he was never the same as a goalie in big games after '09 versus the Hawks. Yet, Gillis gave a player coming off two bad playoffs and in his 30s a 12-year-deal.

Gillis created that situation. And he turned two good goalies (perhaps two great goalies) into 2 prospects and a checking centre.

Blame the circumstances, sure. But, Gillis had a part to play in creating them.
User avatar
Mondi
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby BurningBeard » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:13 pm

He also (with the advice of his coach) gave Luongo the C. Which probably truly marked the beginning of the circus in net. You can make excuses for all the things that happened, there are plenty to be made, but call a spade a spade (Topper I know you will :D). He had the best goalie, and the best goalie prospect the Canucks have ever had, and he handled that situation poorly.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby herb » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:22 pm

Giving the C to Luongo also may have helped re-sign Roberto.

Gillis also managed this team to having the best goaltending in the league for a year or maybe even two.
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Strangelove » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:29 pm

Mondi wrote:Luongo was re-signed after getting lit up in back-to-back year by the Hawks.

IMO, he was never the same as a goalie in big games after '09 versus the Hawks. Yet, Gillis gave a player coming off two bad playoffs and in his 30s a 12-year-deal.


In his previous two playoffs Lou had a .929 sv%.

It was that contract (or one like it) that kept Lou from walking as a UFA.

That contract brought Lou's cap-hit down $1.5m from his previous contract and was hailed as a genius move.

No one even dreamed that the new CBA (2 years later) would turn that from a great contract to a bad one.
Last edited by Strangelove on Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7533
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Strangelove » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:34 pm

Mondi wrote:And he turned two good goalies (perhaps two great goalies) into 2 prospects and a checking centre.


Well if they're prospects, how do you know they won't end up being better assets than "two good goalies"?
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7533
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:51 pm

Will try and get to everyone's response in a bit. Thanks to these last few days, I'm behind at work now, lol.

Just wanted to respond to one quick comment by the good Doctor.

Strangelove wrote:Well if they're prospects, how do you know they won't end up being better assets than "two good goalies"?


I agree with this line of thought as well. Markstrom is still quite young, and the guy was hailed as a World Class Superstar potential goalie not too long ago. Although it might be a long shot, who's to say that he doesn't rediscover his game and become a beast?

In 1998 when we acquired Bertuzzi, he was considered a failed project............and then we saw him maximize his potential for a few good years there. Couldn't Markstrom do the same?

One of Lack or Markstrom, if not both, will be excellent goalies in this league. At minimum - you will get one future core piece. In a best case scenario, you keep one goalie and move other said excellent goalie for another area that needs help.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Arbour » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:59 pm

The 2005 NHL CBA Article 26 contained a broad provision that would allow the league to veto any contract that they determined to be an attempt to circumvent the cap, including arbitration proceedings to settle any contentious issue concerning circumvention. In Luongo's case the league considered the option but then allowed the contract, which means at the time as far as the League was concerned the contract was not an attempt to circumvent the cap.

Subsequently in the 2012 CBA the recapture provisions were made a new condition of the CBA and applied to any existing long term contracts extending over a certain number of years, which in effect amounted to a retroactive penalty being applied to said contracts which were previously found to be in compliance with the former CBA. Completely out of Gillis's control and utter bullshit! As Hockey Widow stated at the very least Lou's contract should have been grandfathered in since it was approved at the time, even though provision existed to challenge it.
Arbour
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:54 pm

Next

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron