Goaltending conundrum

[Tigger]

Cripes if Gillis could somehow give us Luongo AND pay his salary some of you still wouldn't want him.

Ha, well no, if the Leafs could bury him in year 4 if they have to and the talent cost isn't lights out then sure, Luongo is an instant upgrade right now, there's no doubt.

 

[Madferret]

Prior to becoming available in June I think at some point everyone here made fun of the Canucks / Luongo's contract.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Making jokes about teams/players we don't like even if they're not rational?  What is this place coming to!?

We also have made fun of Alfredsson and Spezza for years but can still recognise their skill.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

And besides, making fun of the contract was valid, which is why there's no consensus here on acquiring him, with most of the worry being about said contract.

 

[Madferret]

It's ok I made fun of it too

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Nothing is, but (setting aside all other considerations for the moment) who gives us a better chance: Luongo vs. Reimer, or Luongo vs. Scrivens, or Luongo vs. anybody else out there who's available?

And seriously -- what's wrong with Luongo's play lately?  Not much that I can see.  He's a helluva long way from dropping off the table.

I think it's great that Leaf fans have gone back to 'making the playoffs is good enough' mentality..because in reality, the best Luongo does for this team is improve them enough to slip into the 8th place. That gets the team an automatic thrashing in the 1st round by the Philly's, Pittsburgh's or Boston's of the league and a 15th or 16th overall draft pick.

So I ask you, how in god's green earth, does this help the Leafs get better?

Leaf fans have to quit looking for fixes that help the team get marginally better, and realize that the only way to get fully better is to build from within. When Toronto gets closer to fully contending, and they're maybe a move or two away, that's when you start giving up future's for the present.....The Leafs are so far away from that right now, it makes absolutely zero sense.

I'm hearing Huet wants to come back to the NHL.....perhaps that's the right move.

You don't want Luongo. You want Huet instead. Check.

What a joke this whole thread has become. "Oh maybe when we are closer to contending" blah blah blah. News flash: that day may never come unless we get good goaltending now.

But hey, by all means keep dreaming up reasons why we shouldnt acquire a top notch goalie. Cripes if Gillis could somehow give us Luongo AND pay his salary some of you still wouldn't want him.

Quite a few assumptions in there bucko.

1)Huet comment was made toungue in cheek. Sorry for not putting a little rolling eyes picture.

2)Please explain to me how getting an established goalie allows this team to contend in 3,4 or 5 years?

3)And of course most here would take Luongo under your listed circumstances. In fact, I said it a page or two back that if we didn't have to sell the farm, I'd take Luongo. I personally feel there has to be another bad contract going the other way. That being said, Gillis wants the moon for him and his contract is still ludicrous..so your point is moot.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

If you had to choose between Scrivens or Huet to fill the back up role, is there really much thinking necessary to make the choice?

Like I've said, Scrivens will become the better goalie IMHO.

 

[ZBBM]

Nothing is, but (setting aside all other considerations for the moment) who gives us a better chance: Luongo vs. Reimer, or Luongo vs. Scrivens, or Luongo vs. anybody else out there who's available?

And seriously -- what's wrong with Luongo's play lately?  Not much that I can see.  He's a helluva long way from dropping off the table.

I think it's great that Leaf fans have gone back to 'making the playoffs is good enough' mentality..because in reality, the best Luongo does for this team is improve them enough to slip into the 8th place. That gets the team an automatic thrashing in the 1st round by the Philly's, Pittsburgh's or Boston's of the league and a 15th or 16th overall draft pick.

So I ask you, how in god's green earth, does this help the Leafs get better?

Leaf fans have to quit looking for fixes that help the team get marginally better, and realize that the only way to get fully better is to build from within. When Toronto gets closer to fully contending, and they're maybe a move or two away, that's when you start giving up future's for the present.....The Leafs are so far away from that right now, it makes absolutely zero sense.

I'm hearing Huet wants to come back to the NHL.....perhaps that's the right move.

You don't want Luongo. You want Huet instead. Check.

What a joke this whole thread has become. "Oh maybe when we are closer to contending" blah blah blah. News flash: that day may never come unless we get good goaltending now.

But hey, by all means keep dreaming up reasons why we shouldnt acquire a top notch goalie. Cripes if Gillis could somehow give us Luongo AND pay his salary some of you still wouldn't want him.

Quite a few assumptions in there bucko.

1)Huet comment was made toungue in cheek. Sorry for not putting a little rolling eyes picture.

2)Please explain to me how getting an established goalie allows this team to contend in 3,4 or 5 years?

3)And of course most here would take Luongo under your listed circumstances. In fact, I said it a page or two back that if we didn't have to sell the farm, I'd take Luongo. I personally feel there has to be another bad contract going the other way. That being said, Gillis wants the moon for him and his contract is still ludicrous..so your point is moot.

1.  Your sarcasm was well hidden.

2.  It's called "winning more."

3.  That's what I have said too.  What's frustrating is that the thread has devolved into people just groping for reasons not to take him.  The contract is the ONLY valid reason not to want him.  He's a top goalie, he's shown no signs of losing it, and there's no reason to think he can't be effective for longer than the 3 years some people are projecting.

As for the impact of the next CBA on this contract, does anyone seriously think that there won't be a provision allowing teams some kind of an "out" at the tail end of long contracts?  The league is not going to hogtie all the high-profile teams -- the ones who drive league revenue, you know -- who just handed out 10-plus-year contracts.  That would be insane.

So to repeat, like you I only want him for nothing (so to speak).  Gillis can keep asking the moon, for now.  When the season comes round, he'd be well advised to drop his price.  And if he doesn't, then by all means let him carry Schneider and Luongo, if he's that dumb.  But if he comes to his senses and is willing to dump Luongo on us, we should take it as fast as we can.

 

[rdowdall]

Nothing is, but (setting aside all other considerations for the moment) who gives us a better chance: Luongo vs. Reimer, or Luongo vs. Scrivens, or Luongo vs. anybody else out there who's available?

And seriously -- what's wrong with Luongo's play lately?  Not much that I can see.  He's a helluva long way from dropping off the table.

I think it's great that Leaf fans have gone back to 'making the playoffs is good enough' mentality..because in reality, the best Luongo does for this team is improve them enough to slip into the 8th place. That gets the team an automatic thrashing in the 1st round by the Philly's, Pittsburgh's or Boston's of the league and a 15th or 16th overall draft pick.

So I ask you, how in god's green earth, does this help the Leafs get better?

Leaf fans have to quit looking for fixes that help the team get marginally better, and realize that the only way to get fully better is to build from within. When Toronto gets closer to fully contending, and they're maybe a move or two away, that's when you start giving up future's for the present.....The Leafs are so far away from that right now, it makes absolutely zero sense.

I'm hearing Huet wants to come back to the NHL.....perhaps that's the right move.

You don't want Luongo. You want Huet instead. Check.

What a joke this whole thread has become. "Oh maybe when we are closer to contending" blah blah blah. News flash: that day may never come unless we get good goaltending now.

But hey, by all means keep dreaming up reasons why we shouldnt acquire a top notch goalie. Cripes if Gillis could somehow give us Luongo AND pay his salary some of you still wouldn't want him.

Quite a few assumptions in there bucko.

1)Huet comment was made toungue in cheek. Sorry for not putting a little rolling eyes picture.

2)Please explain to me how getting an established goalie allows this team to contend in 3,4 or 5 years?

3)And of course most here would take Luongo under your listed circumstances. In fact, I said it a page or two back that if we didn't have to sell the farm, I'd take Luongo. I personally feel there has to be another bad contract going the other way. That being said, Gillis wants the moon for him and his contract is still ludicrous..so your point is moot.

Wow!!!! You just busted out a "bucko".  You realize this stuff stays around for like "forever" right? 

 

[rdowdall]

Nothing is, but (setting aside all other considerations for the moment) who gives us a better chance: Luongo vs. Reimer, or Luongo vs. Scrivens, or Luongo vs. anybody else out there who's available?

And seriously -- what's wrong with Luongo's play lately?  Not much that I can see.  He's a helluva long way from dropping off the table.

I think it's great that Leaf fans have gone back to 'making the playoffs is good enough' mentality..because in reality, the best Luongo does for this team is improve them enough to slip into the 8th place. That gets the team an automatic thrashing in the 1st round by the Philly's, Pittsburgh's or Boston's of the league and a 15th or 16th overall draft pick.

So I ask you, how in god's green earth, does this help the Leafs get better?

Leaf fans have to quit looking for fixes that help the team get marginally better, and realize that the only way to get fully better is to build from within. When Toronto gets closer to fully contending, and they're maybe a move or two away, that's when you start giving up future's for the present.....The Leafs are so far away from that right now, it makes absolutely zero sense.

I'm hearing Huet wants to come back to the NHL.....perhaps that's the right move.

You don't want Luongo. You want Huet instead. Check.

What a joke this whole thread has become. "Oh maybe when we are closer to contending" blah blah blah. News flash: that day may never come unless we get good goaltending now.

But hey, by all means keep dreaming up reasons why we shouldnt acquire a top notch goalie. Cripes if Gillis could somehow give us Luongo AND pay his salary some of you still wouldn't want him.

Quite a few assumptions in there bucko.

1)Huet comment was made toungue in cheek. Sorry for not putting a little rolling eyes picture.

2)Please explain to me how getting an established goalie allows this team to contend in 3,4 or 5 years?

3)And of course most here would take Luongo under your listed circumstances. In fact, I said it a page or two back that if we didn't have to sell the farm, I'd take Luongo. I personally feel there has to be another bad contract going the other way. That being said, Gillis wants the moon for him and his contract is still ludicrous..so your point is moot.

1.  Your sarcasm was well hidden.

2.  It's called "winning more."

3.  That's what I have said too.  What's frustrating is that the thread has devolved into people just groping for reasons not to take him.  The contract is the ONLY valid reason not to want him.  He's a top goalie, he's shown no signs of losing it, and there's no reason to think he can't be effective for longer than the 3 years some people are projecting.

As for the impact of the next CBA on this contract, does anyone seriously think that there won't be a provision allowing teams some kind of an "out" at the tail end of long contracts?  The league is not going to hogtie all the high-profile teams -- the ones who drive league revenue, you know -- who just handed out 10-plus-year contracts.  That would be insane.

So to repeat, like you I only want him for nothing (so to speak).  Gillis can keep asking the moon, for now.  When the season comes round, he'd be well advised to drop his price.  And if he doesn't, then by all means let him carry Schneider and Luongo, if he's that dumb.  But if he comes to his senses and is willing to dump Luongo on us, we should take it as fast as we can.

The only problem with that is that if an out is provided, Vancouver could just take it, making him a free agent.  Then he is available to everyone.  So really, I think this is a standoff until the new CBA is signed.  I think the CBA negotiations are hindering some of the possible roster transactions that could go down.  Also, it is August.

 

[bustaheims]

2.  It's called "winning more."

Winning more and contending are not necessarily the same thing. The Leafs could win more and still not make the playoffs.

3.  That's what I have said too.  What's frustrating is that the thread has devolved into people just groping for reasons not to take him.  The contract is the ONLY valid reason not to want him.  He's a top goalie, he's shown no signs of losing it, and there's no reason to think he can't be effective for longer than the 3 years some people are projecting.

Well, sure, if you ignore historical trends. He could be effective for more that 3 or 4 seasons, but, history shows that's the less likely of the 2 major options.

As for the impact of the next CBA on this contract, does anyone seriously think that there won't be a provision allowing teams some kind of an "out" at the tail end of long contracts?  The league is not going to hogtie all the high-profile teams -- the ones who drive league revenue, you know -- who just handed out 10-plus-year contracts.  That would be insane.

It's probably worth noting that 3 of the top 5 highest revenue teams don't have any of these contracts and, of the top 10 teams, there is only 1 that has more than one that takes the player into and past his age 35 season (Detroit), and 4 of the top 10 highest revenue teams don't have any of these long-term deals (Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Calgary). Oh, and there are only 2 of these types of contracts in the league that aren't already 35+ contracts and take the player past their age 40 season, only one of which belongs to a top 10 revenue team - Kovalchuk's and Luongo's. It doesn't "hogtie" the large revenue teams anywhere close to as much as you're trying to make it out to be.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Quite a few assumptions in there bucko.

1)Huet comment was made toungue in cheek. Sorry for not putting a little rolling eyes picture.

2)Please explain to me how getting an established goalie allows this team to contend in 3,4 or 5 years?

3)And of course most here would take Luongo under your listed circumstances. In fact, I said it a page or two back that if we didn't have to sell the farm, I'd take Luongo. I personally feel there has to be another bad contract going the other way. That being said, Gillis wants the moon for him and his contract is still ludicrous..so your point is moot.

1.  Your sarcasm was well hidden.

2.  It's called "winning more."

3.  That's what I have said too.  What's frustrating is that the thread has devolved into people just groping for reasons not to take him.  The contract is the ONLY valid reason not to want him.  He's a top goalie, he's shown no signs of losing it, and there's no reason to think he can't be effective for longer than the 3 years some people are projecting.

As for the impact of the next CBA on this contract, does anyone seriously think that there won't be a provision allowing teams some kind of an "out" at the tail end of long contracts?  The league is not going to hogtie all the high-profile teams -- the ones who drive league revenue, you know -- who just handed out 10-plus-year contracts.  That would be insane.

So to repeat, like you I only want him for nothing (so to speak).  Gillis can keep asking the moon, for now.  When the season comes round, he'd be well advised to drop his price.  And if he doesn't, then by all means let him carry Schneider and Luongo, if he's that dumb.  But if he comes to his senses and is willing to dump Luongo on us, we should take it as fast as we can.

Winning more makes the team better right now, not in 3 or 4 years. If we give up futures for Luongo, we give up the future hopes of the team.

Essentially, in order to get Luongo, we'd be making a big hole to fill another big hole.

So yes, like you've said, unless Gillis drops his price considerably, he can take a flying leap.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Wow!!!! You just busted out a "bucko".  You realize this stuff stays around for like "forever" right?

I don't get it. Resident class clown?

 

[rdowdall]

Wow!!!! You just busted out a "bucko".  You realize this stuff stays around for like "forever" right?

I don't get it. Resident class clown?

I was voicing my displeasure of your uppity-ness through a feeble attempt at humour.

 

[ZBBM]

2.  It's called "winning more."

Winning more and contending are not necessarily the same thing. The Leafs could win more and still not make the playoffs.

3.  That's what I have said too.  What's frustrating is that the thread has devolved into people just groping for reasons not to take him.  The contract is the ONLY valid reason not to want him.  He's a top goalie, he's shown no signs of losing it, and there's no reason to think he can't be effective for longer than the 3 years some people are projecting.

Well, sure, if you ignore historical trends. He could be effective for more that 3 or 4 seasons, but, history shows that's the less likely of the 2 major options.

As for the impact of the next CBA on this contract, does anyone seriously think that there won't be a provision allowing teams some kind of an "out" at the tail end of long contracts?  The league is not going to hogtie all the high-profile teams -- the ones who drive league revenue, you know -- who just handed out 10-plus-year contracts.  That would be insane.

It's probably worth noting that 3 of the top 5 highest revenue teams don't have any of these contracts and, of the top 10 teams, there is only 1 that has more than one that takes the player into and past his age 35 season (Detroit), and 4 of the top 10 highest revenue teams don't have any of these long-term deals (Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Calgary). Oh, and there are only 2 of these types of contracts in the league that aren't already 35+ contracts and take the player past their age 40 season, only one of which belongs to a top 10 revenue team - Kovalchuk's and Luongo's. It doesn't "hogtie" the large revenue teams anywhere close to as much as you're trying to make it out to be.

1.  Well, yes, but that's trivially true.

2.  Data?

3.  It sounds like you are making my case for me.  40% of the top 5 and 60% of the top 10 is a lot, and the 35+ material is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that the league will not allow long-term contracts to become such an albatross around the necks of teams, especially high-profile ones, that it undercuts the league's business.

 

[bustaheims]

2.  Data?

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2010/04/29/how-do-goalie-age-part-iii/

The chart represents individual save percentage relative the league average - anything above 1 is above average, any thing below is below average. The blue line on that represents the path of their control group (which included a guys like Belfour, Jospeh, Kolzig, etc) in their attempt to find an "average" performance. As you can see, by 35, the "average" goalie has regressed to league average and performance tends to drop off dramatically after that. Luongo could be an exception, but, even Roy and Hasek saw their play relative to the rest of the league drop off significantly past age 35, while Brodeur's play since then has been inconsistent. Of course, all 3 of these goalies entered this age period ahead of where Luongo is now.

3.  It sounds like you are making my case for me.  40% of the top 5 and 60% of the top 10 is a lot, and the 35+ material is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that the league will not allow long-term contracts to become such an albatross around the necks of teams, especially high-profile ones, that it undercuts the league's business.

THe 35+ is absolutely relevant, because a change to the 35+ is the simplest and most likely avenue for the league to change how these contracts are dealt with. Changing the rule to include all players over 35 instead of just contracts signed by players over 35 effectively serves the league's intentions in dealing with these contracts without having to change the language of the contracts, how their calculated against the cap, etc.

And, I can spin those numbers just the same way as you can - 60% of the top 5 and 40% of the top 10 will not be impacted. That's a significant amount of high revenue teams that will not stand in the way of a rule change here, and that may in fact encourage it (and, we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the top revenue team will support and champion for such a change, since we know how strongly Burke feels about these contracts).

 

[Kin]

"Yeah, the NHL would never bone over the biggest revenue teams competitively in the new CBA"
- Me, 2004

 

[Big Daddy]

I'm just happy we finally got a Bucko out of someone...Aug is the month of frustration when everyone realizes nothing may change. Bucko is going to be a future classic.  Love this site.

 

[Zee]

I'm just happy we finally got a Bucko out of someone...Aug is the month of frustration when everyone realizes nothing may change. Bucko is going to be a future classic.  Love this site.

I remember how you could always tell Richie was super upset if he broke out "bucko".  He said that to the Fonz and the entire audience was like "OOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

 

[caver]

Great goaltending thread....