You Decide: Does Luongo Stay Or Go?

by Yankee Canuck on May 13, 2009 1:46 PM PDT in Incessant Bitching Comment 26 comments

If you haven't gathered by now, this entire Luongo debate (debate! It's been two damn days since the team was ousted) is now more infuriating then actually be bounced out of the playoffs.

And the thing is, for the majority of the articles I've read, they seem to be speaking for the unspoken yet vibrant bitter masses of Vancouver fans. However that also seems to suggest just the opposite; the writer is speaking for himself or a few Team 1040 callers.

And now, by extension, we're doing it. Hooray! Isn't being part of the problem fun?

I'm not on Robson street, so I have no idea. Are you bitter? Hey, I'm bitter. Sean's bitter. And we're both firmly in the "hells no" department of this "debate". So as long as we're all talking about our bitterness, our goalie and what's in the best interest of our team, let's answer it.

At least a poll feels mildly legitimate.

Poll

Is it in Vancouver's best interest - short and long term - to trade Luongo this summer?

Yes

82 votes

No

263 votes

Who am I, Mike Gillis? I don't know. I'm going back to The Office reruns. Pam's hot.

25 votes

370 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 26 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Oh I’m bitter as fuck. And I called Lui a giant dirty slut of a goalie at many times during the game. Sometimes I do think he makes too much money. But DUMP HIM??? What are these people smokin? Hells no.

by Alix on May 13, 2009 2:02 PM PDT reply actions

Good Poll

Now this is where we check what everyone voted for and ban the one’s that answered wrong.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on May 13, 2009 2:13 PM PDT reply actions

I can see how everyone voted?? I didn’t read my SBN manual very clearly…

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on May 13, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Annoying loaded question. I’m not in favor of a knee-jerk fools trade, but if July 1st rolls around and Lou doesnt wanna ink an extension. Then its a different story, a new poll is in order (I think).

Maybe along the lines of

Do Vancouver consider moving Luongo if he declines to sign an extension over the summer?

I like to think that most fans who are saying trade him, are probably the same ones who sit around me and yell “SHHOOOOTTTTT” whenever the puck crosses the blue. I’m also sure though, that there are a few who see it my way also.

by Nuckels on May 13, 2009 2:23 PM PDT reply actions

If he wants more than $7 mill, or wants to wait to free agency to re-sign, trade him. But if he'll take a reasonable amount this summer, see if you can sign a tip tier defenseman and go young up front. Play Hodgson, Grabner, Jaffray et al and a better defense with Lou.

"Life is just a place where we spend time between games. Hockey is where we live, where we can best meet and overcome pain and wrong and death." - Fred Shero

by Karina on May 13, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions

To your question I’d say no. Lu will “see” how the Canucks do in 09-10, and he had better be a big part of their success.

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on May 13, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions

@nuckels

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on May 13, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions

As a GM that is a major problem

by rsm on May 13, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Sure, but that’s not the question o’ the day. If you read these pieces that are floating out there most aren’t saying trade him if he sends a signal to the organization that he wants to move on. They’re saying REGARDLESS if he wants to stay or go, he should go. Now. In some pieces in a weak-willed attempt to get J-Bo (because that’s what we were missing against Chicago? Honestly??)

And as far as an extension goes, I think July 1st is a bit much. Gillis has plenty of other targets before he gets there.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on May 13, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I don’t think he’s allowed to sign him to an extension until after July 1st – I seem to remember something like that in the CBA.

by NuckFan on May 13, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions

I know what you mean about some of the articles. And I agree with your stance.

July 1st is the 1st day where a extension can be signed. I dont expect anything done instantly, but if Lou doesnt sign in the summer, do we risk movin him at the 20 game mark? 40 game mark? Trading deadline or even worse. July 1,2010 for nothing…
I say that he signs and this is all left behind by next season. But only Lou and possibly Nucks management know what his longterm intentions are.

ps. J-bo could be signed and still Lou could be re-inked. I would rather see the money spent on a top 6 forward though.

by Nuckels on May 13, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Sorry to hijack your question. As a Nucks fan, i’ve been tryin to sort out my anger and sadness over this years disappointment.

Still can’t believe they lost, this year could have been the one. I truly believed it…

by Nuckels on May 13, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions

IF the Canucks sign Boumeester I’ll be pissed because they’ll pay him $7 million after a bidding war. Pathetic. He’s not worth that much.

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on May 13, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions

BTW, bank on Gillis doing NOTHING with Luongo after July 1st, and this will be a topic that will go on for all of or most of next season. Why do I say that? Because I believe Luongo is in the driver’s seat here, and we know his intentions long term: to play with a team that has a great or the best chance at winning the Cup. Expect a kickass performance from Lou next season, but he won’t give any clear answers to the burning of his future.
We may as well get used to it.
People were saying the same shit about Ohlund last summer and earlier this season was well. At the end of the day, you don’t flog Louie, because Gillis is going to build this team to be a winner again next season

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on May 13, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Hey, as a Hawks fan

We’ll gladly trade you Huet for Luongo next season. :)

Maybe these guys writing these articles don’t actually watch the games, because I don’t remember Luongo letting in many soft goals over that series — most of them were redirects, through screens, or just bad bounces, and he had a number of saves that were incredible.

He’s a great goaltender and any team would be overjoyed to have him.

White Sox: Oops, looks like we rolled snake eyes.

by vince_ on May 13, 2009 4:37 PM PDT reply actions

Ah, a brother with reason.

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on May 13, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions

I think that if there isn’t an extension signed by the beginning of next season, Gillis has to look at trading Louongo. Not that I’d really like that, but losing him for nothing in 2010 is no good.

by hailstop on May 13, 2009 5:07 PM PDT reply actions

Bwahahah! I can kill this argument right now!
Luongo has a no-trade clause in his contract. End of story.
He’s not going anywhere. Go back to mowing your lawns, haters! :)

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on May 13, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions

A lack of commitment, as I noted in the previous comment, is a problem for Gillis. If he doesn’t see a willingness to resign he’ll have to start looking for a shortlist of teams he’s be willing to go to. Pronger Trade take 2 in that case…

I think Lou is in the driver’s seat all the way… which from a ‘seeing my team win the cup’ perspective is not necessarily the greatest thing in the world.

by rsm on May 13, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Those mean nothing these days. You know and I know it.

by Nuckels on May 13, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions

What doesn’t, NTC’s? Yes they do.

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on May 13, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions

that seriously changes the equation.

if there weren’t a NTC, Gillis could say “extension this summer plz”, and if bob said no, we trade him for a delightful batch of young forwards and turn the keys to the car over to schneider+journeyman. Gillis would be the power-broker.

WITH the NTC, Gillis could say “extension this summer plz”, and if bob said no….we’re fucked. we could ask him for a list of teams, but he’d say a) eh, no, or b) montreal, montreal, maybe tampa or ottawa, and montreal. there’s a huge difference between having 29 teams to trade with and like 3 or 4; it really limits your leverage. bob could really play hardball and we’d have roughly zero recourse beyond, like, benching him.

by passive_voice on May 14, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions