Luongo

[Bender]

Belfour didn't win a Cup until he was 34.  People would slam him as not being able to take a team all the way too.

Dominik Hasek won his first cup at 37
Tim Thomas won his first cup at 36

But, again, this may be a scenario where facts are not the issue.

Well, if we're being entirely fair, both Hasek and Belfour had multiple Vezina trophies before they won the Cup, and Thomas won his second the same year he won the Cup. Luongo's good, but he's really not in the same league as those guys (he's been a finalist 3 times, though, so, it's not a huge gap as TML Fan wants us to believe).

I'll concede Belfour and Hasek, but Thomas is a weird situation. His peak will probably be higher than Luongo's but Thomas peaked so damned late. Luongo's been a consistent goaltender for the last 12 seasons. Thomas has only been in the league since the lockout, had a good year, posted bad-ish numbers the next and has been excellent since 2008/2009.

I view Thomas as a bit of a strange case. Great goaltender, no doubt, but still...

 

[Kin]

If the Canucks think they can win a Cup with Luongo, then they would trade Schneider to solve their problem. He is easily the more moveable asset, and if the Canucks won a Cup, I don't think they would care if they gave up their "goalie of the future" when they could potentially win multiple Cups with Luongo.

See, the fundamental problem with the argument you're making is that you seem to think as though the idea that a team might have two goalies who are capable of success is some sort of impossibility.

If the Canucks think that they can win a cup with either Luongo or Schneider but feel as though keeping both of them is untenable or even undesirable then there are reasons to trade Luongo and there are reasons to trade Schneider. Schneider has the more movable contract, yes, but it's the fact that Luongo's contract is a burden that could make them want to move it. If they feel either goalie is capable, it's a tough decision.

And, not to get too heavy or anything, but there are also degrees, right? Like, Vancouver might think that either goalie could win a cup but that Schneider gives them a better chance and that they'd want to go with the goalie that gives them the better chance regardless of trade return. But the Leafs, or any team that doesn't feel as though they have a goalie capable of winning a cup, could be interested in another team's goalie even if he's the lesser of the two.

Again, you asked why the Leafs would be interested in Luongo regardless of his contract. The answer to that is, I'm sorry, so simple that to answer it without condescending sarcasm is just about impossible. He's better than what the Leafs have. He's an improvement. Team's want to get better.

Taking Luongo's contract and asset cost into account, does he represent a significant enough upgrade that trading for him is worth it...I mean, that's basically the same question every single person who's mentioned Roberto Luongo, here or in the great big world, has asked. That's not a question with an easy or definite answer.

 

[bustaheims]

I'll concede Belfour and Hasek, but Thomas is a weird situation. His peak will probably be higher than Luongo's but Thomas peaked so damned late. Luongo's been a consistent goaltender for the last 12 seasons. Thomas has only been in the league since the lockout, had a good year, posted bad-ish numbers the next and has been excellent since 2008/2009.

I view Thomas as a bit of a strange case. Great goaltender, no doubt, but still...

Well, sure, Thomas is an aberration in a lot of ways, but, he's still won 2 of the last 3 Vezina trophies and, even without the Cup win, no one would be really questioning his ability to lead a team to success - none of his team's playoff struggles can really be placed directly on his shoulder. His playoff numbers have been consistently excellent, whereas Luongo's are spotty.

But, if we're really being honest, the issue with Luongo is not his short-term ability. I think just about everyone would agree that he's among the top goalies in the league right now and should be for a few more years. The issues are more about his ability in the future, the contract that he's signed to and the acquisition cost. If he was on a 4 to 6 year deal, I don't think too many people would be that adverse to making a move to acquire him.

 

[cw]

Belfour didn't win a Cup until he was 34.  People would slam him as not being able to take a team all the way too.

Dominik Hasek won his first cup at 37
Tim Thomas won his first cup at 36

But, again, this may be a scenario where facts are not the issue.

Well, if we're being entirely fair, both Hasek and Belfour had multiple Vezina trophies before they won the Cup, and Thomas won his second the same year he won the Cup. Luongo's good, but he's really not in the same league as those guys (he's been a finalist 3 times, though, so, it's not a huge gap as TML Fan wants us to believe).

I'll concede Belfour and Hasek, but Thomas is a weird situation. His peak will probably be higher than Luongo's but Thomas peaked so damned late. Luongo's been a consistent goaltender for the last 12 seasons. Thomas has only been in the league since the lockout, had a good year, posted bad-ish numbers the next and has been excellent since 2008/2009.

I view Thomas as a bit of a strange case. Great goaltender, no doubt, but still...

I certainly wouldn't expect Tim to put up similar numbers as a Leaf as he has as a Bruin. I think Chara & the Bruins skaters are just "a little bit better" defensively.. 

and so are Kesler and the Canucks skaters.

Purely speculative and ignoring whatever has Thomas taking the year off: if Thomas and Luongo were on the same team next year, I suspect Tim would probably have the edge. In the next few years, I'd expect age to catch up to Thomas and Luongo would probably out perform him.

 

[Tigger]

If he wouldn't want to come to Toronto, why does everyone say Toronto is on his list of teams that he would agree to be traded to?

I've yet to read anything definitive and Nik's lawyer has all my money right now...

;D

To be fair, it's being funneled to Alto Reed and, well, he's the real problem here...

 

[TML fan]

If the Canucks think they can win a Cup with Luongo, then they would trade Schneider to solve their problem. He is easily the more moveable asset, and if the Canucks won a Cup, I don't think they would care if they gave up their "goalie of the future" when they could potentially win multiple Cups with Luongo.

See, the fundamental problem with the argument you're making is that you seem to think as though the idea that a team might have two goalies who are capable of success is some sort of impossibility.

If the Canucks think that they can win a cup with either Luongo or Schneider but feel as though keeping both of them is untenable or even undesirable then there are reasons to trade Luongo and there are reasons to trade Schneider. Schneider has the more movable contract, yes, but it's the fact that Luongo's contract is a burden that could make them want to move it. If they feel either goalie is capable, it's a tough decision.

And, not to get too heavy or anything, but there are also degrees, right? Like, Vancouver might think that either goalie could win a cup but that Schneider gives them a better chance and that they'd want to go with the goalie that gives them the better chance regardless of trade return. But the Leafs, or any team that doesn't feel as though they have a goalie capable of winning a cup, could be interested in another team's goalie even if he's the lesser of the two.

Luongo is only going to get worse though, and the Leafs are still quite a way off from making any kind of legitimate run. Having Luongo also limits the Leafs options for improving the position, and the team in general. Given the state the team is in right now, I would think they'd want to keep those options open.

If Vancouver thinks they could win with either goalie, then surely the trade return on Schneider woud offset the lesser chance that Luongo would give them to win.

 

[Kin]

Luongo is only going to get worse though, and the Leafs are still quite a way off from making any kind of legitimate run. Having Luongo also limits the Leafs options for improving the position, and the team in general. Given the state the team is in right now, I would think they'd want to keep those options open.

Well, as people have mentioned above, goalies careers are not simple enough patterns that you can really say that a goalie at 32 is only going to get worse. He could, conceivably, have 7-8 years of very good play left. Heck, Roloson had an extended playoff run last year at 42. Goalies playing well into their late 30's is not so much of an aberration that it should be ruled out as a matter of fact.

But, again, asking whether or not Roberto Luongo is a good acquisition considering his contract and asset cost is a perfectly fair question. It's largely what's filled up these 18 pages. Asking why the Leafs would be interested regardless of his contract is not that.

If Vancouver thinks they could win with either goalie, then surely the trade return on Schneider woud offset the lesser chance that Luongo would give them to win.

Schneider's value isn't as simple as you think. He's never had a season as his team's #1 who's also never won anything and is only a year away from Free Agency. The Leafs got burned pretty badly the last time they traded for a goalie who'd had good half-seasons but never good whole seasons and gave him a contract that, really, his play has never been worth. I wouldn't trade a ton for Schneider either.

Schneider may very well be a good goalie, maybe a great one, but his contract status and play going forward are as legitimate question marks as they are for Luongo.

 

[Deebo]

They have a young long term option in Schneider, we have question marks.

For them it's a choice between Luongo or Schneider.

For us, it would be a choice between Luongo or Reimer, Gustavsson, Scrivens or other available goalies rumoured to be out there like Harding, Lindback or Bernier. IMO Luongo is hands down the best of that bunch and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[Frank E]

I really think the structure of the new CBA is going to dictate the price of acquisition of Luongo. 

I don't see Burke stepping into the Luongo contract until he knows what the economics of the new CBA is.  He's more calculating than that.

 

[dappleganger]

Luongo is only going to get worse though, and the Leafs are still quite a way off from making any kind of legitimate run.

In all fairness, I don't think you can't say that.

Luongo is the best option in net for the Leafs since Cujo left and we signed Belfour.

I don't think there is an good argument to be made about his level of play. I don't think there's any question whether Luongo will put up better numbers than any Leaf goalie that played net last year. 

It solely comes down to his contract and the Leafs have to decide whether it will be an obstacle they can work around or not.

 

[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.

 

[TML fan]

Bender, to unjerkishly answer your earlier question about what I would do, I would come back with Reimer. I like to think that Burke and the Leafs actually do know something and that they are right about Reimer being the real deal. I guess I am just more patient than most.

I would like to see the Leafs improve on size and toughess more than anything.

 

[dappleganger]

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.

I don't blame Luongo for his team's lack of success in Florida, but it is a knock against him.

I think this where you and I differ, I am that desperate to make the playoffs.

 

[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.

 

[Redleaf]

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.

Did you watch any of the Leafs games this past season, or do you just have a short term memory?

 

[Kin]

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?

Again, the idea that the Canucks think that Luongo isn't good enough to win a cup is entirely unsupported. All you're really basing that on is the Canucks thinking Schneider might give them a better chance to beat the Kings which turned out not to be true. Even if they had been right it doesn't mean Luongo is incapable. Remember our talk about degrees?

Any judgment based on a trade is yet to be valid and in addition to the already given reasons aside from ability there's evidence that the motivation to deal Luongo comes from Luongo.

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?

Honestly, this is where you start losing credibility. The idea that Florida didn't win anything during Luongo's time is a strike against Luongo and not a reflection on the team does not betray a deep understanding of how hockey, or any team sport, works.

No player, not Babe Ruth or Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan, won anything singlehanded. Until you understand that, your evaluation of individual players is going to be woefully facile.

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?

Again, these are questions that are answered by comprehending nuance. A Vezina nomination is an accomplishment. Winning a playoff round is an accomplishment. Winning a frigging Olympic Gold Medal is basically synonymous with accomplishment. An individual's worth is not solely determined by whether or not his team won a championship. C'mon.

Saying that Luongo hasn't accomplished anything is exactly the same as saying Shea Weber or Claude Giroux haven't accomplished anything and that Korbinian Holzer and Nazem Kadri are just as good.

 

[Kin]

I don't blame Luongo for his team's lack of success in Florida, but it is a knock against him.

You realize that's a contradiction, right?

 

[dappleganger]

I don't blame Luongo for his team's lack of success in Florida, but it is a knock against him.

You realize that's a contradiction, right?

It's quite the paradox.

 

[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.

 

[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.