Gillis claims to have a deal for Luongo...kind of

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Luongo would provide around a .08 Save Percentage boost to the Penguins in the regular season. I am not sure that improvement is worth the contract that would be coming to the Penguins in return.

Especially considering you would still have the same worries about your goalie come playoff time.

I think it'd be a little more than that. In my opinion ES sv% is generally the best indicator of a goalie's effect and Luongo has been markedly better than Fleury over recent years:

11-12: +.014,
10-11: +.009
09-10: +.017
08-09: +.014

So he's been about .014 better which in a starter's workload translates to 20 fewer GA over a season. That's not an inconsiderable difference in goal differential. It's like having a 20 goal scorer on your 1st line compared to a 40 goal scorer.

Their playoff numbers in that span are even more disparate, with Luongo having a 22 point advantage over Fleury in ES sv% in what is a fairly large sample for each goalie. In a 4 round cup run, that's 12-13 GA fewer for Luongo. Again, that's not something to just write off.

[morgin]

All things considered, Luongo's remaining contract isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.

Given this year is prorated, it's really only 5.5 years at 6,714,000 per year @ 5.3 mil cap hit. Then another 4 years in a mentor/backup role costing 6.9mil mil over that period. His stats over the last few years are among the top of the league. Full stop. Whether the intangibles like not being clutch or whatever are true or not (not likely to find many in a rival teams fanbase who would say he is, but he did bail the canucks out many times during the playoffs which seems to be forgotten in place of the team meltdowns that he had to backstop) on the open market a guy like Luongo is easily going to make his cap hit (http://www.capgeek.com/leaders/?type...ion=G&limit=25).

Taking a 5.3 mil cap hit for a backup/1B role in the final 4 years sounds bad, but we're also talking about 2018-2022. If the business of hockey continues to grow (and all indications are that there are a lot of terrible markets and a lot of room for such growth) a 5.3mil/year cap hit in those years is likely a lot less painful sounding than it sounds now. That said, there is nothing stopping a team from taking on Luongo at a decent locked in cap hit for 5.5 years with the intention of trading him to a team in the last 4 years that needs the cap hit and low salary. He has the NTC, but this is 2018 we are talking about - no where can predict what financial situation teams may be in then and who he would consider playing for. Do you not take a franchise goalie because you are worried about the last 4 years? Tough to say.

EDIT: Also forgot that the NTC opens up between the 5th and 6th year (summer 2015) and the 7th and 8th year (summer 2017).

Is it a great contract to shop? No. Is it the worst in the league? Not by a long shot. It would be tough for teams with spending limits to take on the sheer amount of $$ for the next 5.5, but from a cap management perspective, it's not really that bad if you are going to have him as a starter.

That said, they'll probably trade Schneider after he plays terribly against Calgary and that will be the end of that!

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I think it'd be a little more than that. In my opinion ES sv% is generally the best indicator of a goalie's effect and Luongo has been markedly better than Fleury over recent years:

11-12: +.006,
10-11: +.009
09-10: +.017
08-09: +.014

So he's been about .014 better which in a starter's workload translates to 20 fewer GA over a season. That's not an inconsiderable difference in goal differential. It's like having a 20 goal scorer on your 1st line compared to a 40 goal scorer.

Their playoff numbers in that span are even more disparate, with Luongo having a 22 point advantage over Fleury in ES sv% in what is a fairly large sample for each goalie. In a 4 round cup run, that's 12-13 GA fewer for Luongo. Again, that's not something to just write off.

Are you using the goalies Save Percentage or the team save percentage? N

I get:
11-12: +.006
10-11: +.010
09-10: +.008
08-09: +.008

You can't use the team save percentage. Especially since Schneider has been one of the top backups in the league the last couple seasons.

EDIT: Just saw you are using EV save percentage.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Are you using the goalies Save Percentage or the team save percentage? N

I get:
11-12: +.006
10-11: +.010
09-10: +.008
08-09: +.008

You can't use the team save percentage. Especially since Schneider has been one of the top backups in the league the last couple seasons.

EDIT: Just saw you are using EV save percentage.

Yeah, just even strength sv%. It's not a perfect metric because some goalies are better than others on the PK over the long haul, but based on what I've read from people who've put a lot of research into it is that ES sv% is the best predictor of future performance among goalie stats. Goalies that have a medicore ES sv% but a good SH sv% are more often than not simply the product of a very good PK which Pittsburgh has proven to have under Bylsma.

[AR_Six]

Opendoor your caveats are well founded but I agree with your methodology, evsv% is the best measure. Shsv% is not sustainable over multiple seasons imo.

Originally Posted by morgin

All things considered, Luongo's remaining contract isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.

Given this year is prorated, it's really only 5.5 years at 6,714,000 per year @ 5.3 mil cap hit. Then another 4 years in a mentor/backup role costing 6.9mil mil over that period. His stats over the last few years are among the top of the league. Full stop. Whether the intangibles like not being clutch or whatever are true or not (not likely to find many in a rival teams fanbase who would say he is, but he did bail the canucks out many times during the playoffs which seems to be forgotten in place of the team meltdowns that he had to backstop) on the open market a guy like Luongo is easily going to make his cap hit (http://www.capgeek.com/leaders/?type...ion=G&limit=25).

Taking a 5.3 mil cap hit for a backup/1B role in the final 4 years sounds bad, but we're also talking about 2018-2022. If the business of hockey continues to grow (and all indications are that there are a lot of terrible markets and a lot of room for such growth) a 5.3mil/year cap hit in those years is likely a lot less painful sounding than it sounds now. That said, there is nothing stopping a team from taking on Luongo at a decent locked in cap hit for 5.5 years with the intention of trading him to a team in the last 4 years that needs the cap hit and low salary. He has the NTC, but this is 2018 we are talking about - no where can predict what financial situation teams may be in then and who he would consider playing for. Do you not take a franchise goalie because you are worried about the last 4 years? Tough to say.

EDIT: Also forgot that the NTC opens up between the 5th and 6th year (summer 2015) and the 7th and 8th year (summer 2017).

Is it a great contract to shop? No. Is it the worst in the league? Not by a long shot. It would be tough for teams with spending limits to take on the sheer amount of $$ for the next 5.5, but from a cap management perspective, it's not really that bad if you are going to have him as a starter.

I agree with this perspective. It isn't a good contract. But people talking about it like it's such a cap anchor and albatross that teams should be sending a low draft pick or their garbage back in exchange has consistently baffled me throughout this saga. It's a 5.33 mil cap hit for a guy who over the past 5 years is a top 3 goalie in the league and one of the only guys currently playing (Lundqvist, Rinne being the others that come to mind) with the consistency have been in that "top echelon" every year. He is the difference between an 11th and 8th place finish for the Leafs and maybe the Panthers contend for the division again if they get him.

Fact is there's no way Van gets fair value return but he isn't anything close to a salary dump and if trash is all they can get, they're better off keeping the guy and rotating their starters. After all, maybe Schneider turns into a pumpkin. It's happened before (coughSteveMasoncough) and he's already orange.

[OILFAN #81]

Oilers and Blackhawks are interested. Interesting.

[Resolute 14]

Oilers?

I'm pretty sure "how dumb can Kevin Lowe be?" is just a rhetorical question at this point.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Oilers and Blackhawks are interested. Interesting.

Says who?

I think the greatest trade ever would be Luongo for Duncan Keith for sheer drama. But that's never going to happen. A close second in awesomeness though would be Luongo for Dave Bolland, which has at least theoretical potential.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Says who?

I think the greatest trade ever would be Luongo for Duncan Keith for sheer drama. But that's never going to happen. A close second in awesomeness though would be Luongo for Dave Bolland, which has at least theoretical potential.

Not a chance Luongo is worth either of those players.

[AR_Six]

Bolland was reportedly part of negotations in the summer as it was so a package involving him is not out of the question by any means.

Obviously he's not worth Keith, no matter how bad Keith looked last year.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Oilers?

I'm pretty sure "how dumb can Kevin Lowe be?" is just a rhetorical question at this point.

Maybe hes bitter due to his current lack of media notoriety. That would really get him back in the spotlight again.

Yakupov for Luongo, straight up.

The sad thing is, that would actually improve both teams.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by morgin

All things considered, Luongo's remaining contract isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.

That said, they'll probably trade Schneider after he plays terribly against Florida and that will be the end of that!

Also I meant Calgary here, not Florida. I had Florida on the brain looking at their cap situation for the next few years (given they are a potential suitor).

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Bolland was reportedly part of negotations in the summer as it was so a package involving him is not out of the question by any means.

Obviously he's not worth Keith, no matter how bad Keith looked last year.

Why would the Canucks trade for someone who would just start clocking his teammates?

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why would the Canucks trade for someone who would just start clocking his teammates?

Judging from the first two games, they could use a good smack.

[henriksedin33]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you serious?

There is no way in hell that any of the above pairs would be packages for Luongo.

They are not even close to reality.

O'Reilly and Varlamov is the closest and with more back the other way, then maybe. But the others?... Good Lord.

Dallas and Montreal - if asked - would be very quick to point out that their guy (Lehtonen and Price respectively) are better than Luongo, so why in hell would either throw in a star to trade down their goalie?

Edit: to anyone that would argue that Luo is better than either, that is subjective, and it is a certainty that the respective GMS don't agree with you.

LOL @ Lehtonen being better than Luongo. Funniest thing I've read in a while. And no, that is not subjective.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Oilers and Blackhawks are interested. Interesting.

hasn't that been known for awhile?

I still don't see the Oilers happening because of his NTC (don't see his wife wanting to live there)

Chicago would be great, Canucks/Hawks games would become even more crazy than they all ready are

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think Fleury is one of the worst starters in the league and view the upgrade as obvious.

I'd take the crapper starter who won 42 games last year please.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by henriksedin33

LOL @ Lehtonen being better than Luongo. Funniest thing I've read in a while. And no, that is not subjective.

Nope the funniest thing I've read in a while is still this:

Originally Posted by henriksedin33

Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.

We all know how this will go, we've seen it before. You will give a few reasons why (you hope) LA will beat the Canucks, it won't happen, and you'll move on to why SJ/Chi will beat them, and so on. So predictable, so transparent. If you're going to predict a Canucks loss, at least wait for a team that has a decent shot. Boy who cried wolf.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Says who?

OILFAN #81 clearly has sources, he has been a great source of information since I joined the boards. If he says they have interest, I would guess they probably do.

[StrykerSteve]

Gillis is an arrogant tool, I couldn't care less what he has to say.