• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Reilly

Summer 2010: Use Lidstrom's cap space to sign Luongo?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Eh, I'd rather try to prioritize a replacement defenseman. Altho I think Lids will give Detroit at least one more season. But otherwise the Wings could try to snag Kubina or Gonchar who'll also be UFA... and you're free to judge that last part however you wish...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the fence about this.

In one respect, it's safe to say that the Wings don't have the best goaltending that we could have. But on the other hand, the caliber of defense makes up for it entirely. If Lidstrom retired, I don't think our defense would necessarily fall apart. Rafalski is amazing out there. Stuart does pretty well too. (If we hang onto him). Sammuelson is vanilla pudding. He doesn't do anything. Not to bash him - he's been having a great season so far. Kronwall has really started to show through lately. Losing Lidstrom doesn't exactly mean we need a #1 goalie. And if our defense remains intact(maybe look into getting another top defenseman?), Conklin has proven that he's fully capable of handling the shots - as has Osgood.

I'm a believer in building the team from the defense out. Put the money of D.. because when you have to rely on the goalie to stop the puck, the rest of the team has failed to do their jobs, in a sense. As good as Luongo is... it would really just eat up money that we don't necessarily need to or SHOULD be spending between the pipes.

Edited by Ms_Hockey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP: congrats on starting a thread that actually inspired discourse and not flame wars. :lol:

i'm inclined to agree with those who have said that a) the money would be better spent on upgrading the D, and b) we have gotten a lot of pretty good play out of cheap goalies these last few years. unless our system changes, money is better spent on D men and 2-way forwards that can keep number of shots low and to the outside. if we spend $5 million less on a goalie, that's either one pretty good d-man or a couple of defensive, checking forwards, or an upgrade from a goal-scorer to a goal-scorer that can play on both ends of the rink.

unless our system changes, i wouldn't see holland going after a big-name goalie.

and it's not like we don't have goalie prospects. yeah, even if none of them are absolutely lights out, they can be ozzie-quality and still be serviceable. plus, holland, it seems, has a way of snagging good goalies for cheap, conks being the obvious example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if Holland is still the GM. Holland is a fan of two good lower priced goalies and very good Dmen. He has proved that this works and who are we to argue? lol When Lidstrom retires I think that Kenny will go after another D man. Stuart and Kronner are good but not top two on this team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd absolutely do it -- but I also say that with a good dose of bias considering Luongo is my favorite player not wearing the winged wheel. I recall (not) fondly of the Red Wings losing out on him before Keenan shipped him off to Vancouver and honestly -- this is pure speculation on my part -- that he may get a case of Hossa-itis if he hits free agency: he'll spurn a more lucrative contract offer for the chance to play with a proven winner.

The Red Wings are known to covet him and there were reports (out of Boston, I think Kevin Dupont penned the article) that said a person with "connections with the Red Wings" (Dave Lewis?) that Detroit was prepared to send Luongo an offer sheet as soon as he hit restricted free agency. Obviously the trade to Vancouver happened just prior to that deadline. If it was true or not who knows, but it was definitely food for thought.

I think that -- as others have mentioned -- Detroit would need to find out what they have in Larsson first. Howard hasn't really been given any signifigant time with the big club but I think it's safe to say that Larsson has shown the most promise in making the jump so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signing a goalie to a big, lengthy contract is not a smart thing to do. Case in point: the Islanders and Rick Dipietro. They would love to have a do-over on that one. The Canucks will probably follow suit and do that with Luongo. Besides, they ask him if he wants to be made Captain and he says yes! How does he find a uniform big enough to fit that ego into. And, for a goalie as young as he is, he is already a frequent flyer on the injured list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Signing a goalie to a big, lengthy contract is not a smart thing to do. Case in point: the Islanders and Rick Dipietro.

That's apples and oranges. Those goaltenders don't even compare. DiPietro has shown flashes of promise but he's best known for his consistent inconsistencies (har-har) and injury issues. Luongo is a proven franchise netminder in the prime of his career.

Besides, they ask him if he wants to be made Captain and he says yes! How does he find a uniform big enough to fit that ego into.

You're kidding, right? What does ego have to do with it? He is -- by FAR -- the best player on that Canucks team and, IMO, the person best-suited to be a captain. I don't have a doubt that those players look to him for leadership in the lockerroom, and I'm not one to think that it's taboo to be a captain if you strap on pads prior to games.

And, for a goalie as young as he is, he is already a frequent flyer on the injured list.

Do some research. Until his recent groin injury the last time he missed any extended period of time was nearly seven years ago when he missed the last 14 games of the 2001-02 season due to an ankle injury. Other than that the most games he has missed consecutively has been four in 2001.

If Luongo has proven anything it's that he's a franchise netminder that can steal you games and start 70+ games in a season for you. They don't exactly grow on trees and if the chance to acquire one comes along you take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather use the money to sign Kovalchuk.

I've yet to see a team with a marquee goalie play anything but an insomnia curing style of hockey. If guys like Brodeur, Luongo, Lundqvist, Kiprusoff, etc... are so good why do the coaches do anything and everything in their power to play an ultra conservative game? None play run and gun. They all play a style that could have a goalie at a fraction of the cost get similar results. What's the point of having a $6-7-8M/yr goalie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather use the money to sign Kovalchuk.

I've yet to see a team with a marquee goalie play anything but an insomnia curing style of hockey. If guys like Brodeur, Luongo, Lundqvist, Kiprusoff, etc... are so good why do the coaches do anything and everything in their power to play an ultra conservative game? None play run and gun. They all play a style that could have a goalie at a fraction of the cost get similar results. What's the point of having a $6-7-8M/yr goalie?

Agree on the idea that having marquee goaltenders is more or less a waste of space in the "cap" era. (Unless you have a generational goaltender a la Roy or Brodeur.) But I don't buy the idea of adding Kovalchuk either. That would be just as much a waste of space in the Wings system. You'd doubtfully get the 100 points out of Kovalchuk that you'd need to make his similar $7-8M salary worth it. Lang and Hossa are pretty basic examples of this. While Hossa's salary in particular is easy to deal with because of the length, if it were longer, he'd be overpaid. For nearly 7.5M, you need to be in the range of at least 90 points, while Hossa is currently on pace for 78. To me, having well-calibrated depth is the best way to go.

The only player that I would put all of Lidstrom's cap space into is Chris Pronger. Bash the guy all you want, but hes one of few guys that you would likely get your money out of at 6-8M. Other than that I would rather go with any two of 1) a 10-15ish goaltender 2) a Top 4 Dman 3) a 2nd line forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree on the idea that having marquee goaltenders is more or less a waste of space in the "cap" era. (Unless you have a generational goaltender a la Roy or Brodeur.) But I don't buy the idea of adding Kovalchuk either. That would be just as much a waste of space in the Wings system. You'd doubtfully get the 100 points out of Kovalchuk that you'd need to make his similar $7-8M salary worth it. Lang and Hossa are pretty basic examples of this. While Hossa's salary in particular is easy to deal with because of the length, if it were longer, he'd be overpaid. For nearly 7.5M, you need to be in the range of at least 90 points, while Hossa is currently on pace for 78. To me, having well-calibrated depth is the best way to go.

The only player that I would put all of Lidstrom's cap space into is Chris Pronger. Bash the guy all you want, but hes one of few guys that you would likely get your money out of at 6-8M. Other than that I would rather go with any two of 1) a 10-15ish goaltender 2) a Top 4 Dman 3) a 2nd line forward.

One point to consider regarding Ilya. His shot. With the passers we have, he'd have no troubles scoring an obscene amount of goals. Can you imagine Kovalchuk on the PP point opposite Lidstrom? Or on a line with Datsyuk or Hudler putting the puck on a silver platter for him? He would make our pass-happy forwards exponentially more dangerous. Hossa has fit in quite well, but Ilya's game would be even better suited to join us.

If only Duncan Keith weren't resticted next summer....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've yet to see a team with a marquee goalie play anything but an insomnia curing style of hockey. If guys like Brodeur, Luongo, Lundqvist, Kiprusoff, etc... are so good why do the coaches do anything and everything in their power to play an ultra conservative game? None play run and gun. They all play a style that could have a goalie at a fraction of the cost get similar results. What's the point of having a $6-7-8M/yr goalie?

I think that the style of play is more indicative of the coach's general coaching philosophy and the "horses in his stable" than anything to do with the goaltender between the pipes. Parity reigns supreme in the league now (except here, so far) and teams simply aren't going to out-gun you night in and night out... so coaches tend to lean toward to making less mistakes which in turn then leads to the "insomnia curing style of hockey."

In Detroit, Babcock has those horses in the stable to play that kind of game and smart salary cap management has left a roster deep in talent. Though losing a caliber of defenseman in Lidstrom will impact the transition game mightily, I have strong confidence that Rafalski, Kronwall, et al (especially if Kindl and Ericsson turn out) will be able to pick up the slack when that time comes.

And to have a goaltender like Luongo behind all that?

The numbers, of course, would have to make financial sense, but -- Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And part of that "horses in the stable" comes from the mentality of building from the net out. Which is backwards IMO. Goalies have the least amount of impact on a game. They can be hung out to dry. They can be sheltered. They can have all the rebounds swept away. They can have guys in their kitchen making their lives miserable. But they can't impact any of that. They're at the mercy of the 18 skaters in front of them. And the better those 18 skaters are the less important the goalie becomes.

If you have any hopes of winning anything you have to have steady goaltending. Great goaltending can't win a game without support, but shoddy goaltending can certainly lose a game (or series). It's more important not to have bad goaltending than it is to have elite goaltending.

There comes a point where all you are paying for is a slightly better GAA. If we had Luongo playing all of Osgood's games how many more wins do we have? 2? And that's with Osgood by all accounts (including his own) not being anywhere NEAR as good as he's capable of playing. If Osgood is playing to his abilities how many more wins do we have? 2?

What's the point?

And this whole discussion is also dependent on Lidstrom going away. I don't think he will. He's playing too well to walk away. He's not going back to Sweden because his kids are in school here. He's healthy *knockonwood*. The Wings are still good. He might not be making $7M+ but I think he sticks around for a couple more seasons at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lids will sign with the ducks so might as well use the cap space for good use.

But seriously wings dont need Lou they have Ozzy tell 2012 pluss I am pretty sure canucks will lock lou up pretty good and lids will be like cheli and play tell he is lik 100 ^^

Edited by Duck Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're assuming there will actually be cap space. God only knows how low the cap could go with the economy being as it is. I can also see Lidstrom playing into his 40s, but I also see him taking a lot less money to help the team retain players. Luongo is a pipe dream unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There comes a point where all you are paying for is a slightly better GAA. If we had Luongo playing all of Osgood's games how many more wins do we have? 2? And that's with Osgood by all accounts (including his own) not being anywhere NEAR as good as he's capable of playing. If Osgood is playing to his abilities how many more wins do we have? 2?

But you're just swapping Osgood out for Luongo here, where in reality -- if this scenario would play out -- you'd be swapping Osgood/Lidstrom for Luongo. I think we've all seen the signifigant impact that having Lidstrom out of the lineup causes and there's no reason to expect that Detroit's transition game and effectiveness won't take a hit when he retires. That's obvious.

What makes more sense (assuming Lidstrom retires) -- theoretically replacing Lidstrom with Kovalchuk and having a 38-year old Osgood manning the net or using Osgood as a backup to a 30-year old Luongo?

And this whole discussion is also dependent on Lidstrom going away. I don't think he will. He's playing too well to walk away. He's not going back to Sweden because his kids are in school here. He's healthy *knockonwood*. The Wings are still good. He might not be making $7M+ but I think he sticks around for a couple more seasons at least.

This I agree with. In all likelihood he'll re-sign. But it is fun to have some idle speculation... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes more sense (assuming Lidstrom retires) -- theoretically replacing Lidstrom with Kovalchuk and having a 38-year old Osgood manning the net or using Osgood as a backup to a 30-year old Luongo?

Having Lidstrom, Kovalchuk, Ozzy & Luongo? :rolleyes:

Ha! Seriously.

Lidstrom will not retire until his early/mid 40's. He's too good in a shape to do so! And, when you think about it, why have Luongo? So much money for the same results as having a less than 1mil goaltender in Conks? Because, be realistic, just because Luongo is in the line-up, Babs will change his goalie rotation system? I think not. So even if he was with the Wings, he'd play as many games as Ozzy, and have to leave the pipes to Conks (or Howard, or Time Tomas? :unsure: )

So then, a lot of money for 35 - 40 games? Good luck with that.

Now, to Kovalchuk ...

Give all the money the man wants, he's as good as 150 points with Detroit :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh, I'd rather try to prioritize a replacement defenseman. Altho I think Lids will give Detroit at least one more season. But otherwise the Wings could try to snag Kubina or Gonchar who'll also be UFA... and you're free to judge that last part however you wish...

Kubina and Gonchar are both getting up there in age, and they dont play that great of defense especially Gonchar. People also need to take into consideration that the Salary Cap more than likely will go DOWN, not up. May not be as much money to spend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you're just swapping Osgood out for Luongo here, where in reality -- if this scenario would play out -- you'd be swapping Osgood/Lidstrom for Luongo. I think we've all seen the signifigant impact that having Lidstrom out of the lineup causes and there's no reason to expect that Detroit's transition game and effectiveness won't take a hit when he retires. That's obvious.

A guy like Kovalchuk would minimize the impact of losing a defenseman because Ilya is a transition game all on his own. My priority is D - F - G. I realize being by your being a goalie that yours is likely G - D - F, but I there are many ways to create nude cats.

What makes more sense (assuming Lidstrom retires) -- theoretically replacing Lidstrom with Kovalchuk and having a 38-year old Osgood manning the net or using Osgood as a backup to a 30-year old Luongo?

Don't forget Jimmy and Daniel or the Conklin of '10. Get a cheap solid goalie and stack the ever living crap out of the 18 skaters in front of them.

This I agree with. In all likelihood he'll re-sign. But it is fun to have some idle speculation... :)

Idle speculation is great. And a team with Kovalchuk on it will be a hell of a lot more fun to watch than one with Luongo. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having Lidstrom, Kovalchuk, Ozzy & Luongo? :rolleyes:

Ha! Seriously.

What are you talking about? I think you need to re-read the post you quoted.

And, when you think about it, why have Luongo? So much money for the same results as having a less than 1mil goaltender in Conks?

You do realize that 1) we're talking 2010 at the earliest and 2) that Conklin has a one-year deal?

Because, be realistic, just because Luongo is in the line-up, Babs will change his goalie rotation system? I think not. So even if he was with the Wings, he'd play as many games as Ozzy, and have to leave the pipes to Conks (or Howard, or Time Tomas? :unsure: )

This just cements that you're certifably crazy. Having Luongo on this club would immediately supplant Osgood as Luongo would most certainly see 65 starts -- minimum.

A guy like Kovalchuk would minimize the impact of losing a defenseman because Ilya is a transition game all on his own. My priority is D - F - G. I realize being by your being a goalie that yours is likely G - D - F, but I there are many ways to create nude cats.

I don't buy that Kovalchuk would have that big of an impact. He's a top flight forward, for sure, but we're talking about the Red Wings' defensive game and that I think that since you're not going to replace an all-time great like Lidstrom with another defenseman and you're not going to do it with a forward, that you nab that franchise netminder. Kovalchuk isn't going to see 30+ a night (that said -- Lidstrom doesn't nowadays but he certainly has the capability). Luongo would obviously be a 60-minute addition and certainly one that makes a signifigant boost to the confidence of the forwards and defensemen in front of him.

Definite +1 for the nude cats reference.

Don't forget Jimmy and Daniel or the Conklin of '10.

Absolutely things will need to get sorted out in the A. The Wings definitely need to know what they've got in these kids, but I'm not really convinced they'll get a legitimate shot (both of them -- one should get a good look) before Luongo would, theoretically, go UFA.

Idle speculation is great. And a team with Kovalchuk on it will be a hell of a lot more fun to watch than one with Luongo. ;)

You're just saying that because it would end GOALIE WARS MMXIII...

Ah.... the neverending Luongo to Detroit fairytale... *sigh* ...........

A man can dream, can't he? It beats the Samuelsson is lazy and he sucks drumbeat, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this