Luongo

[Kin]

Maybe it was my mistake misinterpreting what CF meant by saying far from being washed up, for some reason I automatically assumed he meant that he's still a great goalie, when obviously he could've mean that he's still atleast a good goalie.

I think the other error you're making is in assuming that Luongo's year last year is a clear indication of decline. I'm sure that Luongo's 2010-11 season would qualify with you as "great" in that he earned a Vezina nomination and put up undeniably top notch stats. But does his next season's drop off indicate anything in particular?

I'm not convinced it does. Here are Luongo's SV%'s year by year: .904, .920, .915, .918, .931, .914, .921, .917, .920, .913, .928, 919. As you can see, it's almost an exact up, down, up, down pattern throughout his career. No two consecutive years at .920 or higher and no three years of .919 or lower. So to say that going from .928 to .919 last year as being clear evidence of decline as brought on by age strikes me as premature at best. It seems to be the natural rhythm of his career that has been true since he was in his early 20's.

 

[sneakyray]

trade for him now...and buy him out after next season when he'll be 35.  hopefully reimer is ready by then!

 

[maplesyrup]

I could do without this whole "Luongo watch" thing.

 

[armche123]

I would much rather a "Tavares watch" thing

 

[Corn Flake]

I'm not convinced it does. Here are Luongo's SV%'s year by year: .904, .920, .915, .918, .931, .914, .921, .917, .920, .913, .928, 919. As you can see, it's almost an exact up, down, up, down pattern throughout his career. No two consecutive years at .920 or higher and no three years of .919 or lower. So to say that going from .928 to .919 last year as being clear evidence of decline as brought on by age strikes me as premature at best. It seems to be the natural rhythm of his career that has been true since he was in his early 20's.

Plus the fact that he never dipped below .904 in his entire career is the indication of the kind of overall consistency he brings, even on some pretty bad teams early on. No sign of that changing either.  Exactly what has been missing between the pipes in Toronto since pre-cap Belfour.

 

[Zee]

I'm not convinced it does. Here are Luongo's SV%'s year by year: .904, .920, .915, .918, .931, .914, .921, .917, .920, .913, .928, 919. As you can see, it's almost an exact up, down, up, down pattern throughout his career. No two consecutive years at .920 or higher and no three years of .919 or lower. So to say that going from .928 to .919 last year as being clear evidence of decline as brought on by age strikes me as premature at best. It seems to be the natural rhythm of his career that has been true since he was in his early 20's.

Plus the fact that he never dipped below .904 in his entire career is the indication of the kind of overall consistency he brings, even on some pretty bad teams early on. No sign of that changing either.  Exactly what has been missing between the pipes in Toronto since pre-cap Belfour.

He's always been a solid goalie.  I don't buy the entire "cracks under pressure" thing he's been labeled in Vancouver.  The entire team can be blamed for their playoff woes not just Luongo. 

 

[bustaheims]

Plus the fact that he never dipped below .904 in his entire career is the indication of the kind of overall consistency he brings, even on some pretty bad teams early on. No sign of that changing either.  Exactly what has been missing between the pipes in Toronto since pre-cap Belfour.

Exactly. If his contract wasn't absurd, we wouldn't be debating whether or not the Leafs should acquire him, but what the price would be and whether sacrificing those assets would be the right move.

 

[Redleaf]

Roberto Luongo tells @longleysunsport that Leafs "obviously part of the equation. " bit.ly/URwoTh #Luongo #Leafs #Canucks

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/07/roberto-luongo-toronto-maple-leafs-obviously-part-of-the-equation

 

[Zee]

Roberto Luongo tells @longleysunsport that Leafs "obviously part of the equation. " bit.ly/URwoTh #Luongo #Leafs #Canucks

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/07/roberto-luongo-toronto-maple-leafs-obviously-part-of-the-equation

?I have a lot of respect for Toronto, Brian Burke and the Leafs,? Luongo said after a 90-minute workout with former Leafs goalie goal and long time mentor, Francois Allaire

Oh the irony!  If this deal actually goes through I wonder how much bad mouthing Allaire has done about the Leafs to Luongo?

 

[Boston Leaf]

Roberto Luongo tells @longleysunsport that Leafs "obviously part of the equation. " bit.ly/URwoTh #Luongo #Leafs #Canucks

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/07/roberto-luongo-toronto-maple-leafs-obviously-part-of-the-equation

?I have a lot of respect for Toronto, Brian Burke and the Leafs,? Luongo said after a 90-minute workout with former Leafs goalie goal and long time mentor, Francois Allaire

Oh the irony!  If this deal actually goes through I wonder how much bad mouthing Allaire has done about the Leafs to Luongo?

I actually hope Allaire has.. I really don't want to pay for him

 

[Peter D.]

Is it at all possible that the Leafs get Luongo, and then use one of their compliance buyouts on him in two years time? 

 

[maplesyrup]

Is it at all possible that the Leafs get Luongo, and then use one of their compliance buyouts on him in two years time?

Now there's a thought. Though I still wouldn't part with any of my top 3/4 prospects for him.

 

[bustaheims]

Is it at all possible that the Leafs get Luongo, and then use one of their compliance buyouts on him in two years time?

Only if they get him super super cheap (basically for free) and/or teams are allowed to re-sign players they bought out - both of which seem unlikely.

 

[leafsjunkie]

I don't use Twitter or follow anyone etc... But I know some here have spoken about this 'Strombone1' guy as potentially being Luongo (not sure that's ever been confirmed until now). I just heard on the Fan590, I think maybe Michael Grange was speaking (I didn't catch the whole interview, I was away from my desk), but I caught a bit of it near the end and he confirmed that 'Strombone1' is Luongo. Disregard if this has been confirmed in the past and I missed it on the board somewhere.

 

[ontariojames]

Maybe it was my mistake misinterpreting what CF meant by saying far from being washed up, for some reason I automatically assumed he meant that he's still a great goalie, when obviously he could've mean that he's still atleast a good goalie.

I think the other error you're making is in assuming that Luongo's year last year is a clear indication of decline. I'm sure that Luongo's 2010-11 season would qualify with you as "great" in that he earned a Vezina nomination and put up undeniably top notch stats. But does his next season's drop off indicate anything in particular?

I'm not convinced it does. Here are Luongo's SV%'s year by year: .904, .920, .915, .918, .931, .914, .921, .917, .920, .913, .928, 919. As you can see, it's almost an exact up, down, up, down pattern throughout his career. No two consecutive years at .920 or higher and no three years of .919 or lower. So to say that going from .928 to .919 last year as being clear evidence of decline as brought on by age strikes me as premature at best. It seems to be the natural rhythm of his career that has been true since he was in his early 20's.

Most goalie numbers fluctuate from year to year, it all depends on how good the defence is in front of you.

My problem with Luongo is that we had a direct comparable last year with Schneider in a big sample size and Luongo was badly outplayed. Plus, he's already 33

 

[Kin]

Most goalie numbers fluctuate from year to year, it all depends on how good the defence is in front of you.

The point there was to say that those fluctuations don't, especially not in Luongo's case, give all that strong an indication of decline due to age, although CF is right to point out that it also shows that Luongo is consistently good, even in his down years.

My problem with Luongo is that we had a direct comparable last year with Schneider in a big sample size and Luongo was badly outplayed. Plus, he's already 33

If Roberto Luongo were 27, coming off a season where he had a .935 save percentage and won the Vezina and the Conn Smythe then nobody could find fault with him. He also A) wouldn't be available and B) if by some miracle he were, we'd be talking about which arm and which leg we'd be sending for him.

The fact that Luongo has warts on his resume is precisely why he's available. I think everyone recognizes them. The problem is that Luongo still put up good numbers last year. He's a significant upgrade over what the Leafs have available to them. He's got fair-good playoff numbers(A career .916 SV% in the playoffs, compared to .919 for Martin Brodeur).

So when we talk about trading for him, and keep in mind I'm still probably in the leaning-no camp on that one, we do have to look at in that context. If we're not trading for Roberto Luongo because he's not Dominik Hasek in his prime, well, that seems like a pretty strange stance to take for a team that's desperate for even a hint of success.

 

[Beowulf]

Is it at all possible that the Leafs get Luongo, and then use one of their compliance buyouts on him in two years time?

Only if they get him super super cheap (basically for free) and/or teams are allowed to re-sign players they bought out - both of which seem unlikely.

I had the same thought Peter, it would be ideal and the only way I'd really be on board with trading for Luongo but I also agree with busta it's extremely unlikely that it happens like that. Also, Luongo would make sure not to put himself in that position before agreeing to a trade.

 

[Bender]

Most goalie numbers fluctuate from year to year, it all depends on how good the defence is in front of you.

The point there was to say that those fluctuations don't, especially not in Luongo's case, give all that strong an indication of decline due to age, although CF is right to point out that it also shows that Luongo is consistently good, even in his down years.

My problem with Luongo is that we had a direct comparable last year with Schneider in a big sample size and Luongo was badly outplayed. Plus, he's already 33

If Roberto Luongo were 27, coming off a season where he had a .935 save percentage and won the Vezina and the Conn Smythe then nobody could find fault with him. He also A) wouldn't be available and B) if by some miracle he were, we'd be talking about which arm and which leg we'd be sending for him.

The fact that Luongo has warts on his resume is precisely why he's available. I think everyone recognizes them. The problem is that Luongo still put up good numbers last year. He's a significant upgrade over what the Leafs have available to them. He's got fair-good playoff numbers(A career .916 SV% in the playoffs, compared to .919 for Martin Brodeur).

So when we talk about trading for him, and keep in mind I'm still probably in the leaning-no camp on that one, we do have to look at in that context. If we're not trading for Roberto Luongo because he's not Dominik Hasek in his prime, well, that seems like a pretty strange stance to take for a team that's desperate for even a hint of success.

He was consistently good even in front of a god awful Florida team all those years.

 

[ontariojames]

Most goalie numbers fluctuate from year to year, it all depends on how good the defence is in front of you.

The point there was to say that those fluctuations don't, especially not in Luongo's case, give all that strong an indication of decline due to age, although CF is right to point out that it also shows that Luongo is consistently good, even in his down years.

My problem with Luongo is that we had a direct comparable last year with Schneider in a big sample size and Luongo was badly outplayed. Plus, he's already 33

If Roberto Luongo were 27, coming off a season where he had a .935 save percentage and won the Vezina and the Conn Smythe then nobody could find fault with him. He also A) wouldn't be available and B) if by some miracle he were, we'd be talking about which arm and which leg we'd be sending for him.

The fact that Luongo has warts on his resume is precisely why he's available. I think everyone recognizes them. The problem is that Luongo still put up good numbers last year. He's a significant upgrade over what the Leafs have available to them. He's got fair-good playoff numbers(A career .916 SV% in the playoffs, compared to .919 for Martin Brodeur).

So when we talk about trading for him, and keep in mind I'm still probably in the leaning-no camp on that one, we do have to look at in that context. If we're not trading for Roberto Luongo because he's not Dominik Hasek in his prime, well, that seems like a pretty strange stance to take for a team that's desperate for even a hint of success.

Nothing you said here I ever disagreed with, I said he's a good goalie but I don't want to give up something significant for a 33 yr old who is just good and has a spotty playoff record. If other people think it's worth it that's fine, I don't have a problem with that, just my opinion.

 

[KW Sluggo]

He was consistently good even in front of a god awful Florida team all those years.


That was then this is now. Overpriced and a lot older he is still a decent goalie but I would not trade much to get him. Frankly, unless the price is bargain basement, we are further ahead taking our chances with what we have and if need be enjoying a high draft slot