Luongo

[jonlleafs]

While I'm on the fence about acquiring Luongo, I see both sides of this argument to have valid points.  Is Luongo good?  Yes, I think he'd definitely help the Leafs.  Should we get him?  I'm not so sure.  His contract is a killer and I'd much rather try to pry Thomas away for a year while Reimer/Scrivens develop further.  Or just sign one of the plethora of veteran free agent goalies.  I think Reimer's season as an anomaly (at least I hope so) and of course the sophomore jinx as we've seen all too often with Bozak, Grabs, Gunnerson, etc.  So, for me, I'd give Reimer a chance to prove once again that his first year wasn't a fluke.  But if we bring a guy like Luongo in, that kinda seals the deal for Reimer and he will ultimately need to be moved.

 

[TML fan]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status? You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats. I'm using past examples of how Luongo's individual stats meant absolutely nothing to his team. It's no different. Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument. Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion and I think it raises enough red flags as to whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I think I've adequately defended it. You disagree and that's fine. Moving on.

If we go with the same guys as last year and we get terrible goaltending again, I hope you aren't in the GDTs complaining about it.

Oh, I'll complain, but I will never lament not getting Luongo.

 

[Deebo]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status? You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats. I'm using past examples of how Luongo's individual stats meant absolutely nothing to his team. It's no different. Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument. Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion and I think it raises enough red flags as to whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I think I've adequately defended it. You disagree and that's fine. Moving on.

If we go with the same guys as last year and we get terrible goaltending again, I hope you aren't in the GDTs complaining about it.

Oh, I'll complain, but I will never lament not getting Luongo.

You'll advocate going with these guys, and then complain when they suck.

Awesome.

 

[Kin]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status?

Again, team sports do not work that way. One player does not single-handedly take a team from bad to good.  The issue is whether a player improves his team. If you don't think Luongo made his teams better your eyes haven't been open.

You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats.

No. It's based on watching his goaltending which is reflected and evidenced by his stats.

I'm using past examples of how Luongo has failed to make a bad team better.

No, you're using a single example of how Luongo failed to, by himself and irrespective of the quality of his 20+ teammates, radically alter his team.

In addition to the massive and embarrassing flaw in your logic it's also irrelevant. No one believes or has said, largely because any reasonable person wouldn't need to, that Luongo is the only change the Leafs need to make to vault them from where they are to Stanley Cup champion. That'd impossible for any goalie throughout history. What people believe is that he would be a significant upgrade in net. No more, no less.

Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

Stanley Cup champion MA Fleury?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument.

It absolutely does because you seem incapable of distinguishing questions o team quality vs. questions of individual quality.

Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion of whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

The only reasonable question as to whether or not a player will make a team better is whether he is a better player than the alternatives available. It's pretty simple addition and subtraction.

 

[TML fan]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status? You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats. I'm using past examples of how Luongo's individual stats meant absolutely nothing to his team. It's no different. Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument. Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion and I think it raises enough red flags as to whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I think I've adequately defended it. You disagree and that's fine. Moving on.

If we go with the same guys as last year and we get terrible goaltending again, I hope you aren't in the GDTs complaining about it.

Oh, I'll complain, but I will never lament not getting Luongo.

You'll advocate going with these guys, and then complain when they suck.

Awesome.

I won't be saying "gee I wish they got Luongo"

 

[Jalili]

That's my point though. Is Luongo really the best option when a team that is significantly better than them is convinced he's not good enough to win them a cup? Are we that desperate to make the playoffs?

It's a gamble either way right? I mean, we're gambling that Luongo won't just come in a pull a Florida years where he puts up good numbers but doesn't get the team anywhere? So why not just gamble on the guys we have instead of giving up assets for an aging guy who hasn't really accomplished anything from a team that is actively trying to get rid of him?

Vancouver might be wrong, but they also might be right.

Because the guys we have in the system will probably end up getting lit up again. And what good would that do anyone? It hurts their development and ruins the team's chances of making the playoffs.

And what if they don't get lit up? More to the point, what if Luongo gets lit up?

How did gambling with a bunch of unproven goalies work out for us last season? The team has an extensive track record of going with unproven guys and mediocre vets in net, and the results speak for themselves. Maybe Luongo doesn't do so well here, and flops, but his statistical track record is very credible, far better than what the team has right now.

 

[TML fan]

Goalies can single handedly change the fortunes of their team. Ask Dwayne Roloson. He took a terrible team to the Stanley Cup finals.

 

[bustaheims]

Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

Stanley Cup champion MA Fleury?

Actually, the only time in the last 20 tournaments that Canada didn't earn a medal (1998, which, I imagine is the year TML Fan is referring to - the only year I'd say they really bombed in recent memory), Luongo split the net with Mathieu Garon. As the starting goalie in 1999, he earned a silver medal.

Fleury really just had that memorable meltdown in the gold medal game.

 

[TML fan]

That's my point though. Is Luongo really the best option when a team that is significantly better than them is convinced he's not good enough to win them a cup? Are we that desperate to make the playoffs?

It's a gamble either way right? I mean, we're gambling that Luongo won't just come in a pull a Florida years where he puts up good numbers but doesn't get the team anywhere? So why not just gamble on the guys we have instead of giving up assets for an aging guy who hasn't really accomplished anything from a team that is actively trying to get rid of him?

Vancouver might be wrong, but they also might be right.

Because the guys we have in the system will probably end up getting lit up again. And what good would that do anyone? It hurts their development and ruins the team's chances of making the playoffs.

And what if they don't get lit up? More to the point, what if Luongo gets lit up?

How did gambling with a bunch of unproven goalies work out for us last season? The team has an extensive track record of going with unproven guys and mediocre vets in net, and the results speak for themselves. Maybe Luongo doesn't do so well here, and flops, but his statistical track record is very credible, far better than what the team has right now.

You guys give up so easily.

 

[Deebo]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status? You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats. I'm using past examples of how Luongo's individual stats meant absolutely nothing to his team. It's no different. Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument. Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion and I think it raises enough red flags as to whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I think I've adequately defended it. You disagree and that's fine. Moving on.

If we go with the same guys as last year and we get terrible goaltending again, I hope you aren't in the GDTs complaining about it.

Oh, I'll complain, but I will never lament not getting Luongo.

You'll advocate going with these guys, and then complain when they suck.

Awesome.

I won't be saying "gee I wish they got Luongo"

I'm not talking about Luongo anymore, you said you would go with Reimer again.

So if that's what they do, and he sucks, you shouldn't complain, you're more patient than the rest of us, remember?

 

[Deebo]

Goalies can single handedly change the fortunes of their team. Ask Dwayne Roloson. He took a terrible team to the Stanley Cup finals.

He took a bunch of bad teams nowhere before that, so how was he able to that with the oilers at 36?

 

[TML fan]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status? You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats. I'm using past examples of how Luongo's individual stats meant absolutely nothing to his team. It's no different. Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument. Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion and I think it raises enough red flags as to whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I think I've adequately defended it. You disagree and that's fine. Moving on.

If we go with the same guys as last year and we get terrible goaltending again, I hope you aren't in the GDTs complaining about it.

Oh, I'll complain, but I will never lament not getting Luongo.

You'll advocate going with these guys, and then complain when they suck.

Awesome.

I won't be saying "gee I wish they got Luongo"

I'm not talking about Luongo anymore, you said you would go with Reimer again.

So if that's what they do, and he sucks, you shouldn't complain, you're more patient than the rest of us, remember?

This is like saying if you complain at all, you can't be a fan of the team.

 

[TML fan]

Goalies can single handedly change the fortunes of their team. Ask Dwayne Roloson. He took a terrible team to the Stanley Cup finals.

He took a bunch of bad teams nowhere before that, so how was he able to that with the oilers at 36?

Caught lightning in a bottle?

That's not the point. A bad goalie like Roloson took a bad team high places. A good goalie like Luongo took bad teams nowhere. Things happen in sports and nothing is guaranteed. You think Luongo gives us a better chance. I don't.

 

[Deebo]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status? You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats. I'm using past examples of how Luongo's individual stats meant absolutely nothing to his team. It's no different. Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument. Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion and I think it raises enough red flags as to whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I think I've adequately defended it. You disagree and that's fine. Moving on.

If we go with the same guys as last year and we get terrible goaltending again, I hope you aren't in the GDTs complaining about it.

Oh, I'll complain, but I will never lament not getting Luongo.

You'll advocate going with these guys, and then complain when they suck.

Awesome.

I won't be saying "gee I wish they got Luongo"

I'm not talking about Luongo anymore, you said you would go with Reimer again.

So if that's what they do, and he sucks, you shouldn't complain, you're more patient than the rest of us, remember?

This is like saying if you complain at all, you can't be a fan of the team.

No it isn't.

 

[Kin]

Goalies can single handedly change the fortunes of their team.

A good playoff run is not tantamount to changing a team's fortunes. That season, with Roloson in net, the Oilers were(including the playoffs) 20-12-5(.541 winning %). With Ty Conklin, Mike Morrison and Jussi Markanen in net they were 36-24-10(.514 winning percentage). That's not an incredibly seismic shift. It's a 4 point swing over the course of a season.

I'd be pretty comfortable that, if I did ask Roloson, he'd talk about how well the team played. In particular, I'm sure he'd mention the Hart winning defenseman who would probably have won the Conn Smythe if the Oilers had won(Largely because the goalie you think almost won it single handed was only in net for 12 of their 15 wins and the team actually allowed fewer goals with Markkinen in net)

Of course, that's because, Roloson understands that teams win games and championships.

 

[TML fan]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status? You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats. I'm using past examples of how Luongo's individual stats meant absolutely nothing to his team. It's no different. Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument. Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion and I think it raises enough red flags as to whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I think I've adequately defended it. You disagree and that's fine. Moving on.

If we go with the same guys as last year and we get terrible goaltending again, I hope you aren't in the GDTs complaining about it.

Oh, I'll complain, but I will never lament not getting Luongo.

You'll advocate going with these guys, and then complain when they suck.

Awesome.

I won't be saying "gee I wish they got Luongo"

I'm not talking about Luongo anymore, you said you would go with Reimer again.

So if that's what they do, and he sucks, you shouldn't complain, you're more patient than the rest of us, remember?

This is like saying if you complain at all, you can't be a fan of the team.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You can support something, and be unhappy with results.

 

[Kin]

Actually, the only time in the last 20 tournaments that Canada didn't earn a medal (1998, which, I imagine is the year TML Fan is referring to - the only year I'd say they really bombed in recent memory), Luongo split the net with Mathieu Garon. As the starting goalie in 1999, he earned a silver medal.

Fleury really just had that memorable meltdown in the gold medal game.

Ohhhh. He was referring to Luongo. I clearly thought he meant Fleury. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[bustaheims]

Actually, the only time in the last 20 tournaments that Canada didn't earn a medal (1998, which, I imagine is the year TML Fan is referring to - the only year I'd say they really bombed in recent memory), Luongo split the net with Mathieu Garon. As the starting goalie in 1999, he earned a silver medal.

Fleury really just had that memorable meltdown in the gold medal game.

Ohhhh. He was referring to Luongo. I clearly thought he meant Fleury. Thanks for the clarification.

Hey, it's not always that easy to tell when you're being glib. This is the internet, after all.

 

[Deebo]

The Leafs are a bad team right? And you think Luongo would make them a better team right? So show me an instance in Luongo's career where he elevated a bad team above that status? You're just guessing that Luongo makes us better based on his stats. I'm using past examples of how Luongo's individual stats meant absolutely nothing to his team. It's no different. Who was in net when Canada bombed at the juniors that one year?

What is all this talk about single handedly winning things? That has nothing to do with this argument. Pointing out lack of success with bad teams, or pointing out his inability to keep a job with one of the league's best teams is entirely relevant to the discussion and I think it raises enough red flags as to whether or not Luongo would ACTUALLY make our team better.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I think I've adequately defended it. You disagree and that's fine. Moving on.

If we go with the same guys as last year and we get terrible goaltending again, I hope you aren't in the GDTs complaining about it.

Oh, I'll complain, but I will never lament not getting Luongo.

You'll advocate going with these guys, and then complain when they suck.

Awesome.

I won't be saying "gee I wish they got Luongo"

I'm not talking about Luongo anymore, you said you would go with Reimer again.

So if that's what they do, and he sucks, you shouldn't complain, you're more patient than the rest of us, remember?

This is like saying if you complain at all, you can't be a fan of the team.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You can support something, and be unhappy with results.

No, it's not saying "if you complain at all, you can't be a fan of the team."

It's saying if the results of decision that you advocate are poor, then you shouldn't complain.

Or at least admit you were wrong before you complain.

 

[Kin]

Yes it is. You can support something, and  be unhappy with results.

TML Fan is actually right here. Sure, posting about the team's struggles after they followed a course he advocated would be a laughably hypocritical criticism but as a complaint it's just as valid as a any of the ones I'd make in the aisles of Toy Stores when I was 5. I should have been able to get all four Ninja Turtles at once, dammit.